' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--- Rajab Ali (petitioner) seeks bail after-arrest in case-F.I.R. No.74 of 2013, dated 27-2-2013 registered for offences under sections 302, 34, P.P.C., at Police Station Sadar Gojra (Toba Tek Singh).
2. Precisely, the prosecution case as narrated by Shaukat All (complainant) is that he along with Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Iqbal stood close to the house of Muhammad Nawaz on 27- 2-2013; his maternal nephew Abu Bakar, who had developed an illicit liaison with Mst. Shakeela Bibi, daughter of Muhammad Nawaz, entered the house of Mst. Shakeela Bibi and joined her in a room of the house, which fact became known to mohalledars; Rab Nawaz, Rajab Ali (petitioner) armed with datar, hammer and Muhammad Saleem armed with taisi entered the said house and bolted the door of the room from outside, wherein both Abu Bakar and Mst. Shakeela Bibi were present; Muhammad Nawaz, the father of Mst. Shakeela Bibi was sent for who reached there armed with toka at about 11-00 a.m.; accused Muhammad Nawaz, Rab Nawaz, Rajab Ali (petitioner) and Muhammad Saleem opened the door and they pounced upon Abu Bakar and caused him multiple injuries by means of their respective weapons and sent him reeling to the ground severely wounded; Rajab Ali (petitioner) and his co-accused also attacked Mst.Shakeela Bibi and inflicted multiple injuries on her body with their respective weapons; the accused fled from the spot after committing the crime; both the injured died instantaneously; motive behind the occurrence pertained to an illicit liaison between the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific role or injury has been attributed to the petitioner and allegation against him is of general and collective nature; nothing was recovered at the instance of the petitioner during the course of investigation; the postmortemexamination-reports of the deceased reveal that they only received sharp- edgedweapon injuries which is inconsonant with the allegation against the petitioner, who allegedly held a hammer at the time of occurrence; the story of F.I.R. Was found false during the course of investigation as Investigating Officer opined that the accused/petitioner was guilty only to the extent of bringing Muhammad Nawaz to the place of occurrence, besides raising a lalkara, after the occurrence was over; the alleged occurrence happened all of a sudden, without any element of premeditation and deceased themselves invited the trouble; lastly submits that it is a case of two versions and which one of them is nearer to truth can only be ascertained at the time of trial. Relies upon case titled Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Rafiq and others ( 1982 SCM R 301), Ehsan Ullah v. The State (2012 SCM R 1137), Zia Ullah v. The State and another (2012 M LD 319), Abdul Latif v. The State and another (2012 YLR 2860), Rehana and others v. The State 1984 SCM R 1557, Allah Bachaya v. The State and another (PLJ 2011 Cr.0 (Lahore) 119), Ghulam Hussain v. The State ( 1979 PCr.LJ 72), Abdul Ghafoor and 2 others v. The State (1979 PCr.LJ 442) and Rehmat Ali v. The State (PLJ 1980 Cr.C. (Lahore) 171).
4. On the other hand, learned Addl: Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes with the contention that the petitioner actively participated in the occurrence and he is equally liable for the entire episode; both the deceased were done to death in a callous and brutal manner, which fact is evident from the contents of the necropsy-- reports; the eye-witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have categorically stated about the active participation of the petitioner in the occurrence; the petitioner was found involved in the occurrence during the course of investigation and placed in Column No.3 of the challan, which stood submitted before the trial Court vide case diary dated 17-4-2013; lastly submits that trial of the accused is at the stage of indictment and learned trial Court has already fixed it on 22-6-2013 for the said purpose.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the petitioner faces a A collective and generalized charge qua an occurrence, which admittedly took place in the house of Muhammad Nawaz accused, who happens to be real father of Mst. Shakeela Bibi (deceased) and a paternal uncle of the petitioner. The complainant did not feel shy of mentioning in the F.I.R. That his maternal nephew, Abu Bakar (deceased) had developed illicit relations with Mst. Shakeela Bibi and in this backdrop, he got into the house of Muhammad Nawaz accused. He certainly went there for enjoying sex but, to his bad luck, it was not his day on the said occasion, as his entrance in the love-nest was noticed by the accused-petitioner and others who held him and his girlfriend captives in a room of the house by bolting it from outside and it was thereafter, that heavens fell upon they erring youths. The mode of occurrence, as alleged by the complainant, leads to believe that it was not a premeditated affair. The contents of the postmortem examination reports reveal that the ill-fated youths received a number of sharp- edged weapon injuries on their bodies, in fact by Mst. Shakeela Bibi and 17 by Abu Bakar, which speaks volumes about the fact that they were done to death in frenzy by the accused, who after having seen both of them together in a room of the house turned furious and emotionally wild. This is the all important fact that the bodies of the deceased were found in the house of Muhammad Nawaz accused, the paternal uncle of the accused-petitioner. The deceased persons had an affair inter se, touching frankness of immorality as admitted by immorality the prosecution itself which gives rise to a view that the accused committed the offence alleged under a compelling circumstance. The complainant repeatedly asserted in the F.I.R. That the occurrence narrated by him was an off-shoot of illicit love affair between the deceased couple. It does not appear to be a case wherein the offence has been committed by the accused in the name of "Ghairat" or family honour, which terms have to be differentiated from grave and sudden provocation, as it can be discerned from the statement of the complainant under section 154, Cr.P.C. That his nephew Abu Bakar (deceased) sneaked into the house of Muhammad Nawaz accused to make love with his daughter Mst. Shakeela Bibi (deceased). It has been opined by the Investigating Officer that the petitioner was guilty only to the extent of summoning his paternal uncle Muhammad Nawaz from his fields to the scene of occurrence, besides exhorting a lalkara after his co-accused Muhammad Nawaz and Rab Nawaz had already murdered the 'in-trouble lovers", thus absolving him of the liability of causing any injury(-ies) to. Them. These important aspects of the case prima facie tilt in favour of the accused-petitioner. Nothing was recovered at the instance of the accused/petitioner during the course of investigation. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner certainly lend a sense of strength to the petitioner's bail-plea, who, prima facie, has made out a good case for grant of bail in his favour as contemplated undet section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. Therefore, the instant petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
7. Before parting, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove .Are of a tentative nature and case against the accused/petitioner shall be decided by the learned trial court on the basis of evidence, led before it by the parties.