2008 P Cr (PLP)

RANA ZAHID MAHMOOD, J.

This is a post arrest bail in case F.I.R No.135 of 2007, dated 27-2-2007, registered under sections 302, 148, 149, 324 and 109 P.P.C, at Police Station Thikhriwala, District Faisalabad, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was armed with a pistol while the co-accused were armed with hatchets and Datters and waylaid Imtiaz alias Gudda deceased brother of the complainant and murdered him by infliction of hatchets and Datters blows whereas the petitioner continued firing with his pistol in the air and raised lalkaras that anybody who came forward to rescue the deceased would be murdered. Motive for the occurrence is previous litigation between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not attributed any overt act in the commission of the offence and has been falsely involved and submitted that even there is no proof of aerial firing by the petitioner due to non-availability of any crime empties of pistol from the place of occurrence on the first visit of the police on the site after the occurrence. He submitted that the recovery of pistol from the petitioner has been planted upon him and the petitioner has been involved simply because petitioner and co-accused are from one family and closely related to each other. The learned counsel has submitted that petitioner is in jail since 26-4-2007 and trial has not made any progress. He submitted that case against the petitioner requires further inquiry and he is, therefore, entitled to bail.

3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R for firing in order to stop the complainant party and the P.Ws. to rescue the deceased and submitted that recovery of pistol has been made from the petitioner and in the investigation he has also been found guilty. It is submitted that offence falls within prohibitory clause and petitioner is also vicariously liable, therefore, no case for further inquiry is made out and the petition may be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

5. Though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R, yet except for aerial firing and raising of lalkaras, has not caused any injury on the person of the deceased, whereas the co-accused are alleged to have inflicted numerous hatchets and Datters blows on the deceased due to previous enmity of litigation between the parties. Crime empties were not available at the scene of occurrence when police visited the site after about three hours on the registration of the case which fact, prime facie, coupled with the allegation of aerial firing brings the case of the participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offence in the ambit of further inquiry. This petition is, therefore, accepted and petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Judge. M.H./M-251/L Bail granted.