2017 PLP 730 (MLD)

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.

The complainant of FIR No.747/2011, dated 5.8.2011, under sections 302, 201, 109, 148, 149 and 34, P.P.C., registered at police station Khurrianwala, District Faisalabad, namely Fiaz Ahmad has alleged that Gohar Ali, armed with Mauzar and his brother Hassan came to his baithak at about 10.00 p.m. on 1.5.2011 and took his brother Altaf Hussain with them for doing labour on their land, where they planned to thresh their wheat crop by means of a thresher; it was at about 2.00 p.m. on 2.5.2011 that Hassan and Ashfaq informed him at his house that Altaf Hussain had been hit by a fire shot and he was admitted in District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad in injured condition, whereon his father rushed to the hospital and found Altaf Hussain lying there dead; Abdul Razzaq, Gohar Ali, Ahmad (petitioner) and Taj Muhammad were also present there; his father, on seeing the dead body of his son, lost his senses; Abdul Razzaq etc. had already called the police there and they asked his father to thumb mark a blank paper, so as to receive the dead body, who did so and learnt that he would receive a copy of the postmortem examination report, the next day; his brother's dead body was buried on the following day; he and his family members inquired Abdul Razzaq etc. about the postmortem examination report but they put them off; it was on 8.5.2011, when Fatah Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan told them that they watered their fields at about 11.00/11.30 p.m. on 1.5.2011 and went to killa No.2, square No.12 to know about availability of the threshing-machine, where they saw Altaf Hussain having been overpowered by Mohsin Ali and Arslan while their co-accused Ahmad (petitioner) repeatedly fired at him, one out of which landed at his right lumber region, due to which he fell on the ground badly bleeding; Gohar Ali etc. attempted to stop the bleeding by means of a cloth and then took him to the village by putting him on a vehicle; on hearing it, he along with his paternal uncle Des Muhammad, Fateh Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan went to the accused, who admitted to have murdered his brother Altaf Hussain and sought apology from them, but he did not agree to it; Qurban Ali and Muhammad Ramzan informed him and his companions that they witnessed and overheard Abdul Razzaq and Ashfaq Ali inducing Gohar Ali, Hassan Ahmad, Arslan and Mohsin Ali accused at about 8.00 p.m. on 30.4.2011, to murder Altaf Hussain, as he had not stopped visiting their house and assuring them that they would take care of the developing situation thereafter; the motive behind the occurrence was that Altaf Hussain was on visiting terms with the accused and they suspected him to have developed illicit liaison with someone in their house and due to this grudge, they committed his murder vicariously.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that three co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Gohar Ali, Hassan Ahmad and Mohsin Ali had been granted post-arrest bail by this court vide order dated 20.12.2011, made in Crl.Misc.No.15494-B/2011, a couple of observations whereof were equally relevant in this case, one, pertaining to Rapar No.5, got lodged by the deceased's father, Muhammad Iqbal to the effect that his son Altaf Hussain had died because Muhammad of a bullet shot fired from his own pistol, which he had concealed in the fold of his Shalwar, so he was not interested in prosecuting anyone for the murder of his son nor did he have any enemies around him, and the other, that pertained to extra-judicial confession of the accused about the murder of Altaf Hussain before the complainant and his co-witnesses, which could be termed joint in nature and thus weaker of the weakest type of evidence, beside being inordinately delayed, regarding which no explanation had been offered by the witnesses thereof. The eye-witnesses, namely, Fateh Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan lived in the same village, where the complainant and the deceased hailed from, hence, their silence for seven long days after they allegedly witnessed the occurrence of murder of Altaf Hussain on 1.5.2011, was not a factor to be easily overlooked. It is found mentioned in the FIR that the accused made an attempt to stop bleeding of Altaf Hussain by pressing his wound with cloth and shifted him to the village and then to District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad, which showed that they made every possible effort to save his life. If they had intended to murder him, why would they have done all that, which they did. The eyewitnesses rendered statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 5.8.2011, wherein they did not disclose as to when they informed the complainant about the factum of having seen the occurrence, rather they did not say it at all that they had informed him in this regard. It looked surprising that father of the deceased had been sidelined by his own son Fiaz Ahmad (complainant), who never let him join the investigation, for the obvious reason, that he had adopted a particular version through Rapat No.5 dated 2.5.2011 (supra), which was later on abandoned by the complainant. The witnesses of extra-judicial confession rendered this piece of evidence still hazier, when they did not mention any date as to when they had allegedly visited the accused in this backdrop. The petitioner underwent physical remand for fourteen (14) days, but nothing was recovered from him in this interval. The Investigating Officer concluded during investigation that Altaf Hussain had been injured at his own hand, as the pistol, that he had concealed in the fold of his Shalwar accidently went off and penetrated his body. He dubbed the murder of Altaf Hussain as Qatl-e-Khata, but he held the petitioner involved in the occurrence, being present at the spot at the crucial hour. He was arrested by the police on 19.1.2016, about four and a half years after the alleged occurrence, but not before he had been proceeded against under section 87, Cr.P.C. on 19.10.2011, followed by submission of challan under section 512, Cr.P.C. against him on 26.10.2011. The record reveals that he had left for Dubai in 2011 for earning the livelihood, where he stayed till his return to Pakistan in 2016. His case, for the reasons discussed supra, called for further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., hence, factum of abscondence would not come in the way of this application.

3. Therefore, this application is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. WA/A-85/L Bail granted.