' A case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Stands registered against the petitioner Abdul Ghafoor and some others with Police Station A-Division, Sheikhupura, vide F.I.R., dated 15-1-1989. According to the allegations as contained in the F.I.R. Lodged by Mst. Shahnaz Bibi for the murder of her father Muhammad Zafar, on 14-1-1989 the first informant's brother's wife Mst. Ghafooran came to her house and informed that she had been turned out of her house by her husband and other in-laws.
Since her brother Irshad Ahmad was married to the real sister of the first informant's husband Abdul Hameed, therefore, her in-laws also threatened her to turn out of the house. On 14-1-1989 at evening time, the first informant's father Muhammad Zafar, and her uncle Iqbal came to her in- laws' house. The above said persons along with some others sat on a cot and started talking. In the meanwhile, Taj Muhammad, co-accused of the petitioner asked one Nasrullah Bajwa to listen to him and took him outside the house. Meanwhile, the petitioner is alleged to have caught Muhammad Zafar in his clasp while Luddu, another co-accused took a wooden Bala and hit Muhammad Zafar on the head, with the result of which he died the following day.
'It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire allegations as contained in the F.I.R., are accepted yet no offence under section 302, P.P.C. Is made out. Submits that it was a sudden affair, therefore, each individual would be responsible for his act. The contentions have been opposed by learned Additional Advocate-General.
2. 1 have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. Are that one Taj Muhammad, co-accused of the petitioner on the pretext of talking to the companion of the deceased took him outside and thereafter the petitioner held him in clasp. I am informed that during investigation said Taj Muhammad has been declared innocent and placed in column No,2 of the challan. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner had facilitated the commission of the offence or he shared the common A intention with his co- accused who hit the deceased on the head. There is no evidence which can indicate the common intention. In these circumstances, prima facie, it would be a case of sudden affair where each individual would be responsible for his act. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he held the deceased in clasp. Therefore, he is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,30,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned.