1976 P Cr (PLP)

Raja Aziz‑ud‑Din Ahmad for the State. Muhammad Akhtar for the Complainant. Mr. Akhtar, learned counsel who has been engaged by the complainant, seeks permission to oppose this bail petition. He has been allowed to appear.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this petition for bail in a murder case, relied on the order passed by me in bail petition (Cr. Misc. No. 3732/B/73) which arose out of the same case and was filed by a co‑accused of the petitioner) and has contended that the only allegation is that when the solitary blow is said to have been inflicted on the deceased by Zulqarnain the co‑accused of the petitioner, he (the petitioner) and his other co‑accused i.e., Shahid Butt alias Mian, caught hold of the deceased by one arm each. Shahid Butt is also alleged to have given a lalkara. He was released on bail on consideration to two circumstances; one, that he is an old T. B. case and that there is no allegation of his having caused any injury to the deceased. In so far as the second circumstance is concerned, the case of the petitioner is at par with that of Shahid Butt.

3. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant have, however, vehemently, opposed this petition on the grounds; firstly, that the petitioner is, from the very description in the F. I. R. a bad character; and secondly, that there is a specific allegation of his having held the accused by one of his arms, when Zulqarnain caused him the knife blow. While dealing with a similar argument advanced on the basis of a ruling of this Court in Beela and another v. The State (1973 P Cr. L J 123) I observed as follows in the order passed in the petition of Shahid Butt:‑ The case filed by the learned counsel for the State is distinguishable in that there was a strong piece ‑ of circumstantial evidence against Mota the accused to that case, and that blood‑stained clothes had been removed from his body after his arrest. Moreover it is not known as to how many injuries were caused to the victim when Mota had allegedly held him in his clasp. In this case there is no dispute on the fact that there is only one injury alleged to have been caused by the co‑accused of the petitioner, and that the only allegation against him is of having held the deceased in his clasp when that one blow was inflicted. Further assertion that the petitioner asked his co‑accused to inflict the blow, can for purposes of bail at least, be treated as proverbial in the circumstances of the case.

5. A solitary blow is said to have been inflicted on the deceased. It is yet to be seen whether it was necessary for two persons to have held the deceased when their co‑accused allegedly inflicted that one blow. It would not have taken more than a second for the infliction of one blow. The question whether the other two accused, in reality, did secure the deceased by one arm needs further enquiry. The fact that the petitioner is according to the learned counsel for the State known in the locality as a bad character would work both ways. This can also be the reason for his alleged false implication. I consider it a fit case for bail because it is not possible to give a finding this stage that reasonable grounds exist to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the, offence he has been accused of. This petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail if he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000 (Twenty-five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Duty Magistrate.

6. Observations made in this order are only in the context of the arguments addressed in this bail petition. Obviously, they shall not influence the course of the trial and the decision in the case. Appeal allowed.