2005 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Akram Gondal for Petitioner. Petitioner Amanat Ali through the instant petition has sought for cancellation of post‑arrest bail extended to respondents Nos.1 and 2 vide the order dated 23-7‑2004 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore in case F.I.R. No.70, dated 5‑2‑2003 under sections 302/201/34/109, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Kahna, District Lahore:

2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that the aforesaid case has been registered on the statement of one Salamat Ali, who is said to be the brother of the petitioner.

3. He has alleged therein that on 5‑2‑2003 at about 1‑30 a.m. some unknown persons have committed the Qatl‑e‑Amd of his deceased father. The petitioner at one stage of the case was an accused in the same. Respondent No.2 had brought private complaint against him and his co -accused Sultan in respect of the said allegation. The petitioner, however, subsequently had managed to bring on the record the statement of one Rashid alias Sheeda under section 164, Cr.P.C. on the basis of which respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were involved in the case.

4. These respondents had applied for post‑arrest bail. The same was extended to them vide the afore‑referred order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved of his such exercise of discretion in their favour has come to this Court.

5. It has been argued on his behalf that sufficient incriminatory material has been brought on the record against these respondents and, hence, the bail was not justifiably granted to them.

6. I have considered the submissions made on his behalf and gone into the copies of the documents annexed to the petition.

7. The fact remains that none is named as an accused in the F.I.R. The names of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have been introduced in the case on the basis of the aforesaid statement of Rashid alias Sheeda ands prior to that the present petitioner and one Sultan were accused in the case and respondent No.2 Muhammad Latif had brought private complaint against them in respect of the allegation of the murder of the deceased. In view of this divergence in the pleas of the petitioner and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the murder of the deceased, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was constrained to hold that they deserved bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been able to controvert the position that both the petitioner and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have divergent pleas/versions in respect of the murder of the deceased. The same, therefore, has brought the case of these respondents within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into their guilt. I am, therefore, clear in mind that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore has not at all erred in the exercise of his discretion in allowing them bail. The instant petition, thus, is devoid of any force arid the same is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./N‑118/L Petition dismissed.