1993 P Cr (PLP)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860); S.302/148/149

Bail

Accused had caused four injuries to three persons and out of them two injuries, though simple, were on the vital part i.e. head of the victim and use of little more force could cause his death

Accused had a definite motive for the occurrence and. was fully involved by the complainant and injured witnesses in their statements under 5.161, Cr.P.C. in the commission of the offence

Bail was refused to accused in circumstances. M. Aslam Riaz for Petitioner. Malik Noor Muhammad Sarfraz for the State. Date of hearing: 21st September, 1992. The allegation against the petitioner and his co-accused is, that they on the 14th of September, 1991 at 5-30 p.m. armed with deadly weapons formed unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Muhammad Ramzan and Peer Bakhsh (deceased) and also caused injuries to P.Ws. The petitioner no doubt had not inflicted any injury on the deceased but he had dealt Sota blow on the head of Muhammad Nawar P.W. and then casued injury to Muhammad Zaman. He inflicted another Sota blow on forehead of Riaz P.W. He had also repeated Sota blow on Muhammad Nawaz P.W. which also landed at his forehead. Similarly co accused of the petitioner carrying hatchets and Sotas had also caused injuries to Ghulam Muhammad, Ameer Hussain, Allah Ditta, Peer Bakhsh, Sulcman and Muhammad Ramzan. Out of the injured persons Peer Bakhsh and Muhammad Ramzan had succumbed to the injuries, therefore, a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. against the petitioner and others was registered with Police Station Aloti, District Toba Tek Singh on the 15th of September, 1991.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged bail on the ground that the complainant's version has become doubtful after D.S.P. Toba Tek Singh and D.S.P. Gojra had declared innocent as many as 4 (four) co accused, namely, Ramzan, Allah Ditta, Sikandar and Iqbal. But this circumstance can be interpreted against the petitioner who was found having active" hand in commission of the offence in both the investigations. The petitioner is the principal accused as he had the main motive to commit the offence and rally around the co-accused to wreak vengeance on Noor Muhammad Bhatti who had reprimanded him for his carrying on immoral liaison with his daughter. This motive finds mention in the first information report itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted at the bar that in fact it was a case of free fight between the tribes of Bhatti and Sargana, each losing life of one person. But even this plea is not helpful to the petitioner as in that situation each participant in fight would be responsible for his act.

4. The learned counsel for the State has canvassed for refusal of mainly on the ground that the petitioner had caused four injuries to three persons and out of them two injuries were on the head of Muhammad Nawaz which though simple but nevertheless had landed on vital part of the body and use of little more force could cause death of the victim. Furthermore, the petitioner had a definite motive to do what he and his co-accused had done. The complainant and the injured witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. have fully involved the petitioner in the commission of the offence. I agree with the learned counsel for the State that in circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The investigation is about to complete and: it will not take long to submit the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. in the Court and further hopefully it would not be a protracted trial, and if at all it becomes so, the petitioner shall be at liberty to apply for bail subject to just exceptions. N.H.Q./T-35/L Bail refused.