1998 P Cr (PLP)

Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa for Petitioner. Muhammad Ashraf Khokhar for the State. A case under section 302/34, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and one Muhammad Ansar for the murder of Ismail on 6-4-1997 at about 5-00 p.m. The report about the occurrence was lodged on the same day at about 6-30 p.m. vide 'F.I.R. No.89 of 1997 registered at the Police Station Motra, District, Sialkot.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was empty-handed, whereas the fatal shot was made by his co-accused Muhammad Ansar at the deceased; that there was no. motive with the petitioner to commit the murder of the deceased; that the Investigating Officer after examining about 35 persons concluded that the petitioner was not present at the spot and that the doubt regarding the participation of the petitioner in the occurrence would even be extended at the bail stage. 3. .The petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that a specific role is attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R. as he had caught hold the deceased by his arms while his co-accused shot him dead. The mere fact that the Investigating Officer made an observation that the petitioner was not found at the place of occurrence in the light of statements of. 35 persons will be of to use to the petitioner at this stage particularly when he is linked with the occurrence by the eye-witnesses. The motive also allegedly extended to the petitioner, because he took the deceased inside the shop at the pretext that payment of borrowed money will be made to him. Even within the shop the petitioner had a row and quarrel with the deceased by catching the latter by his arms. It was, therefore, prayed that the petitioner had no case for bail.

4. I have considered the above submissions. It is clear that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Though, the direct motive is not attributed to him but while the deceased and the principal accused namely Muhammad Ansar were having altercation, the petitioner caught hold the deceased by his arms and took him in the shop and there too he had a row with hint. The petitioner was still holding the deceased by his arms that the principal accused namely Muhammad Ansar pulled out his pistol from his "Dub" and fired a shot at him in the head.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since there was no community of knowledge between the petitioner and his co-accused that the latter was having pistol in his "Dub" he cannot be vicariously held responsible for the murder of the deceased.

6. I have given my careful consideration to this aspect and find that deeper appreciation at this stage cannot be undertaken in respect of the aforesaid knowledge of the petitioner but it is enough to say that the petitioner had played a specific role in the occurrence leading to the murder of the deceased as explained, above. In such a situation the petitioner has no case for bail at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q/1-31/L Bail refused.