Above titled revision petition is directed against the order of District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction.
Sudhnoti dated 08-06-2009, whereby the petitioner was refused bail.
2. Brief facts forming background of the revision petition are that a case under Sections 324, 337 A.P.0 was registered against the petitioner and others at Police Station Baloch on the complaint of Irfan Saleem. It was reported that on 10-01-2009 at about 1:00 a.m Abdul Ghafoor informed the complainant through telephone that his father was laying unconscious in front of the Rural Health Centre, Baloch. After given first aid he was referred by Dr. Mukarram Shah to DHQ Roth, upon this the complainant alongwith relatives came there and noticed injuries at the head and left eye of the victim. He was unconscious and later on was referred to Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad. Arshad, Muhammad Asghar, Ehsan and Muhammad Shamim were nominated as suspects and the motive was shown a dispute over piece of land between the parties.
3. After arrest, the accused-petitioners applied for bail before the Court below which was refused through the impugned order, hence this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that allegedly the occurrence took place at 6.30, p.m.
F.I.R was lodged more than six hours after the incident and the time was utilized for concocting a story to rope the accused-petitioners in a false case. Despite the fact that the occurrence took place in a thickly populated area no eye-witness was mentioned in the F.I.R and later on to strengthen the fabricated version some witnesses were introduced by the complainant, the present petitioners were ascribed role of catching hold of the deceased while accused Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Shamim were alleged for giving sticks, blow to him. In light of the circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that the petitioners might have been roped in the case due to prevailing enmity particularly when they were not attributed for causing any injury to the deceased, the allegation against them was that of further probe. The trial Court while refusing bail failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact. Thus the impugned order was incorrect, against law and principles governing bail matters, therefore, by accepting the revision petition the same may be set aside and the petitioners may please be granted bail.
5. On the other hand, it was argued that the complainant after receiving information about the incident came to Rural Health Centre Baloch where he was informed that the victim was shifted to D.H.Q Hospital Kotli, upon this he came to Kotli and after the deceased was referred to Pakistan Institute of Medical Science Islamabad, he came back to Police Station, Baloch and reported the matter to the Police. The claim of the defence regarding delay in lodging the F.I.R was not correct as a satisfactory explanation was there on record. The allegation of false implication was not correct as initially a doubt was expressed against the petitioners and two others. During investigation they were found guilty for committing the offence. It was evident from the record that the accused-petitioner and others hatched a conspiracy and in order to execute the pre-arranged plan committed the murder, thus they were equally liable for committing the offence and the trial Court did not commit any error while passing the impugned order, therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. It may be stated here that the victim was found laying unconscious in front of Rural Health Centre Baloch. He was given first aid by Dr. Mukarram Shah and was shifted to D.H.Q hospital, Kotli.
Later on he was referred to Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences, Islamabad where he succumbed to the injuries. At the time of lodging F.I.R it was disclosed that an enmity was existing between the parties and doubt was expressed against Muhammad Asghar, Ehsan Elahi, Muhammad Shamim and Muhammad Arshad for committing of the offence. F.I.R does not indicate that the occurrence was witnessed by any body, however, during investigation Abid Hussain and Muhammad Younis claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the incident and they narrated the story that Muhammad Asghar and Ehsan Elahi caught hold of the deceased while others inflicted stick injuries. The accused-petitioners and others were also alleged for hatching conspiracy.
8. While dealing with the allegation of catching hold, the paramount consideration should be that the act was so imminently effected that in all probability it facilitated the others to commit the crime, meaning thereby that there was a chance of escape for victim but the act caused failure or otherwise it was necessary for completion of the crime in circumstances of the case. The present petitioners alongwith the others were alleged for committing the offence of murder, they were ascribed role of catching hold of the deceased. It was claimed that the occurrence was premeditated, the offenders were laying in wait of the deceased, the present petitioners alongwith others were alleged for committing the offence of murder but surprisingly they were not shown to be armed and were only attributed for catching hold of the deceased. Thus prima fade their participation in the occurrence was doubtful and the matter was that of further probe.
9. In light of the facts listed above, the revision petition is accepted and by setting aside the impugned order bail is granted to the petitioners. They shall be released from custody on furnishing bail bond in sum of Rs, 10,00,000/- (Ten lac) each and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of any Magistrate 1st Class, Sudhnoti, if they are not required in any other case or offence.