The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 286 dated 14.8.2006 registered under Sections 302, 148 and 149 PPC at P.S. Saddar Shujabad District Multan.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as contained in the FIR is that on 14.8.2006 at 11.30 a.m. the complainant and his brother Nazir Ahmad went to see flood water. All of a sudden Khuda Bakhsh petitioner, Ghulam Yaseen, Muhammad Sharif, Sabir Hussain and Muhammad Ajmal came there.
Ghulam Yaseen co-accused raised Lalkara that Nazir Ahmed could not be spared and caught hold of him from his collar and pressed his throat while the co-accused inflicted kicks and fist blows on body of Nazir Ahmad. The complainant and his companions attempted to rescue Nazir Ahmad but all the accused threatened him. Nazir Ahmad deceased fell down and the accused fled away from the spot. Nazir Ahmed died at the spot.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no pre-meditation in the case and there is only one injury on the deceased; that according to the report of Bacteriologist, the cause of death of the deceased had occurred due to heart failure, as such the death of the deceased cannot be attributed to the petitioner; that no injury is attributed to the petitioner; that the petitioner has not been attributed any vital role in the commission of the offence and only the petitioner has been attributed vicarious liability which needs further probe and the same is to be determined after the recording of the evidence; that there is no other evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence and that the petitioner is 62 years old person.
4. On the other hand, bail application has been opposed by the learned DPG as well as learned counsel for the complainant, contending that although no weapon has been used but the accused persons have with kicks and blows caused severe damage to the internal organs of the deceased; that according to the post-mortem report, the bladder was half filled with blood and death is due to Injury No, 1; that the intention can be developed at the spur of moment as such the contention that there was no premeditation does not hold the field; that on 6.4.2007, charge has been framed and the evidence of the prosecution has been completed and the trial is progressing and in this respect he has placed on record the interim order sheet of the trial Court, wherein the accused persons have repeatedly sought adjournments and on account of the conduct of the accused persons, the trial could not be concluded; that the trial is at final stages; that the case had been registered on 14.8.2006 while the petitioner had been absconder till 20.12.2006 and next date of hearing is 22.9.2007 and that when the trial is proceeding, bail cannot be granted.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner go into deeper appreciation of evidence and at the bail stage, only tentative assessment is to be taken into consideration. Since the next date of hearing is 22.9.2007 and the trial is likely to be concluded in the near future, I am deliberately not attending to the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party.
Reliance in this respect is placed upon Allah Ditta vs. The State (1990 SCM R 307) and Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (2002 SCM R 1381). The case was registered on 14.8.2006 and the petitioner remained absconder till 20.12.2006 and on this account the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail. In this respect reliance is placed upon Mushtaq Ahmad vs. The State (2000 YLR 1695) and Muhammad Usman us. The State (2007 YLR 937). Charge has been framed and the prosecution evidence has been completed and the trial is being delayed on account of the petitioner/accused, therefore, bail cannot be granted. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.