2003 P Cr (PLP)

Rasool Bahksh, the petitioner has sought: for after‑arrest bail in Case F.I. R. No.416, dated 3‑10‑2001 under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Dajal. District Rajanpur.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that complainant Fateh Muhammad about 10 months ago had married his son Allah Dewaya to Mst. Bakhtawar Mai, the daughter of Rasool Bakhsh. A month prior to the same, a petty quarrel took place between them. On account of the same, Mst. Bakhtawar Mai went to her parents. On 2‑10‑2001, he alongwith aforesaid son Allah Dewaya was present in his house. Rasool Bakhsh alongwith his wife carne there and took away all the articles of their daughter to their house. They remained standing quietly watching the same. On that day i.e. 3‑10‑2001, he alongwith his son Allah Dewaya came to Dajal to make purchases. They when reached near the Hotel of Sabir Hussain at turned road, his son Abid Hussain, who is student of 1st Year also came there. He said to them that his paper was over and he is going to the house. He said to him to reach the house and they would also be reaching there. At about 10‑25 a.m. he went from there. He had covered distance of 2/3 paces, when they heard alarm. They saw Muhammad Usman armed with Chhuri and Pir Bakhsh with pistol. Pir Bakhsh raised Lalkara and said to Abid Hussain that they had not done good to Mst. Bakhtawar Mai. so he would not be spared. In the meanwhile. Sabir Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain also reached there. In their view, Muhammad Usman gave Chhuri blow to Abid Hussain on his front side of the chest. He fell down. He, Allah Dewaya and Sabir Hussain. when stepped forward to rescue Abid Hussain. Pir Bakhsh pointed out the pistol towards them and said that whosoever came forward would be killed. Due to fear they did not step forward. Muhammad Usman gave three‑successive blows with Chhuri to Abid Hussain, when he was lying on the ground. These were on the back side of his neck. He gave other two Chhuri blows to him hitting on his right and left side of back. He was carried to the hospital but he succumbed to his injuries as soon as he reached there.

3. The motive behind the occurrence is the quarrel between Allah Dewaya and Mst. Bakhtawar a month prior to the occurrence.

4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he is not named in the F. I. R.; that his name was introduced in the supplementary statement of Fateh Muhammad complainant shown to have been recorded on 3‑10‑2001 and it was an afterthought as the occurrence as shown in the F.I.R. has taken place in broad daylight and so there could be no doubt with the complainant of his identity, if he had seen him at the spot at the time of occurrence; that he in fact was not present there i.e. why his name was not mentioned in the F.I.R.; that no overt act has been ascribed to him in the supplementary statement of the complainant except that he was having pistol in his hand; that in the investigation, it was found that he is not at all at fault and is innocent; that no recovery was effected from him; and that he is behind the bars and is previous non convict. In support of bail plea reliance has been placed upon the case of Zafar Iqbal v. The State 2000 YLR 2091 (Lahore).

5. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has opposed the application on the ground that his name has figured in the supplementary statement, dated 3‑10‑2001 of the complainant, and that he is father of Mst. Bakhtawar Mai, so is linked with the motive part of the prosecution story.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.

7. He is not named in the F.I.R. His name allegedly had appeared in the supplementary statement of the complainant Fateh Muhammad recorded on 3‑10‑2001. In the same, his mere presence with pistol at the spot at the time of occurrence has been shown ‑and no overt act qua the deceased.

8. On the police record, I have found the case diary No.9‑A recorded on 24‑10‑2001 by Muhammad Khalil Ahmad, Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station Dajal. He has mentioned him to be innocent and not at I fault as regards the alleged incident.

9. Admittedly, no recovery was effected from him. Hence. there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed a non‑bailable offence and rather there grounds for further inquiry into his guilt. His case, thus is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars and is stated to be previous non‑convict.

10. In these circumstances of the case, he is entitled to bail. In this regard reliance is placed upon the case of Zafar Iqbal v. The State 2000 YLR 2091 (Lahore).

11. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. S.M.A.H./R‑187/L Bail granted.