'HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner, namely, Allah Ditta son of Hashmat Ali seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,317 of 2009 dated 17-8-2009 registered at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal, under sections 302, 324, 109 148, 149, P.P.C. On the complaint of Ali Sher son of Bahadur Ali, complainant, respondent No,2.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that sister of the complainant Mst. Anwar Bibi is widow having three daughters. She is owner of three acres of land. There is dispute of said land with her Daiwars, who have occupied the said land. On the day of occurrence at 7-30 a.m. Allah Ditta armed with Pump Action Gun and other co-accused armed with their respective weapon of offence started making indiscriminate firing on his sister and maternal nephews. They tried to save their lives and entered into the house of complainant. Accused also chased them and entered into the house. They caused injuries on the person of Mst. Anwar Bibi, Asia Bibi and both of them died at the spot. Present accused Allah Ditta made straight firing with pump action gun on Mst. Shazia which hit her on her left shoulder. They also killed Mst. Shazia while strangulating with Dopatta around her neck. Witnesses saw the occurrence. Hence, this F.I.R.
3. The petitioner applied for his post arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, who vide order dated 17-9-2009 dismissed the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that motive for the occurrence is family dispute over some piece of land; main emphasis of the petitioner counsel was that the case was got registered on 17-8-2009 at about 7-30 p.m. While the petitioner was arrested on 15-8-2009 at about 10-00 a.m. In another case under section 9(a) of C.N.S.A. For recovery of 7 grams charas in F.I.R. No,533 Police Station Mochiwala District Jhang; on the basis of plea of alibi he sought indulgence of this Court for grant of post-arrest bail; during the investigation Police of Harappa Police Station obtained the custody of the petitioner from the judicial lock-up of Jhang Jail, to make him join the investigation of the instant murder case; he further contended that prior to 15-8-2009 a story of extra judicial confession was concocted; when occurrence took place he was behind the bars in the judicial lock-up in the case registered against him at Police Station Mochiwala, District Jhang, the S.H.O. Falsely involved him in this case, on the plea of alibi, therefore, petitioner is entitled for the concession of post-arrest bail.
5. Learned DDPP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition by submitting that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role; there is allegation against him that he along with other co-accused made indiscriminate firing and he caused injuries upon the left shoulder of Mst. Shazia. During the investigation he was found guilty; he was sent to judicial lockup on 2-9-2009. There are statements of P.Ws under section 161 Cr.P.C. That they heard talk of accused with other co-accused that Mst. Anwar Bibi and her daughters should be killed to grab three acres of landed property; he contended that narcotics case was manoeuvred to be registered by the petitioner himself and was just to make defence in the murder case in which three women were killed and fourth was seriously injured; the concoction of registration of case and subsequent proceedings in the said case need thorough probe, inquiry and investigation by the competent authority; he further submitted that petitioner is resident of area of Police Station Harappa; the story of selling narcotics in the area Police Station Mochiwala District Jhang is fabricated; learned counsel makes reliance on case titled as Said Akbar and another v. Gul Akbar 1996 SCM R 931 in this case petitioner had taken the plea of alibi, that at the time of occurrence, petitioner was behind the bars. In case under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance and section 188 P.P.C. Plea of alibi was not accepted by Supreme Court in a murder case. In another case cited by the learned counsel for the complainant reported as Hafiz Ghulam Akbar v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1719, similar plea of alibi was taken, that petitioner was admitted in the hospital when the occurrence took place. Learned counsel submits in both these cases, plea of alibi was not accepted. It was contended that first cited case was double murder case in which two persons were done to death. In the present case it is triple murder case in which three women were killed and fourth woman was seriously injured, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role. In this case three women are killed fourth woman is seriously injured. During the investigation, he was found guilty and he was sent to judicial lock-up on 2-9-2009. There are statements of P.Ws. Under section 161 Cr.P.C. That they heard talk of accused with other co-accused that Mst. Anwar Bibi and her daughters should be killed to grab three acres of landed property. Narcotics case was manoeuvred to be registered by the petitioner and was just to make defence in the murder case in which three women were killed and fourth was seriously injured. The concoction of registration of Case and subsequent proceedings in the said case needs thorough probe, inquiry and investigation by the competent authority. The accused has taken the plea of alibi with the contention that on 17-8-2009 he was in District Jail Jhang in a narcotics case sent by the learned Judicial Magistrate on judicial remand up to 29-8-2009 yet, according to the police in this case, the accused admitted the offence of abetment of murder of deceased ladies. It was a triple murder case and offences fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Challan of the case is submitted before the trial Court, trial has commenced. At such stage of the trial, Courts refrain from going into merits of the case. I am fortified in this regard from the judgments of honourable Supreme Court and High Court, reported as 1980 SCM R 203, 2002 SCM R 1886, 2002 SCM R 1279, PLD 2002 Karachi 99, 2002 PCr.LJ 1277, 1985 PCr.LJ 336, 2006 SCM R 966.
8. In the light of above discussions and reasons, I am not inclined to allow this A post-arrest bail petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Observations made above are of tentative in nature and the same will not prejudice the case of either side during the trial of the case.