Abdul Sattar alias Bagga, one of the accused in case F.I.R. No.213 registered at Police Station Dichkot, District Faisalabad, on 2-8-1990 under section 302/34, P.P.C., has sought bail.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 25-8-1990 at 1.1-00 p.m. In the `Abadi' of Chak No.247/R.B.
When Younis Masih was lying on a plank in a Khokha type shop, the petitioner and Amjad Jamal alias Goghi co-accused armed with 'Chhuris' and Muhammad Arshad co-accused armed with a `sota' attacked him after raising a Lalkara. He stood up and the `Chhuri' blow given by the petitioner was received by him on his hand. Muhammad Arshad co-accused gave him Sota blow on his left knee, followed by Amjad Jamal co-accused who gave him Chhuri blow on his right flank. In order to save his life the deceased ran towards an enclosure (Waarra) meant for goats belonging to Muhammad Aslam but as a result of the injury sustained by him he fell on a cot. The injured was removed to the Civil Hospital, Dijkot, wherefrom he was referred to D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad and died there at about 8-00 a.m. On the following day.
3. On the receipt of information the police itself reached the D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad and there they recorded the statement of Muhammad Rafique, the real brother of the deceased. On the basis of this statement a case was registered against the petitioner and his co-accused at Police Station Dijkot.
4. The motive for the crime, as alleged in the F.I.R. Was that a shotgun of Muhammad Sadiq, a maternal-uncle of Amjad Jamal alias Goghi co-accused, was stolen prior to the occurrence and a theft case was registered against Younis Masih (deceased). On account of this grievance Amjad Jamal alias Goghi co---accused accompanied by the petitioner and Muhammad Arshad accused caused his death.
5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that he had nothing to do with the motive in this case which was inherently weaker, if at all it was there, because the stolen gun belonged to the maternal-uncle of Amjad Jamal alias Goghi co---accused. It is contended that the occurrence took place during the night when the deceased was allegedly lying in a Khokha and there could be no question of assailant's raising Lalkara. It is urged that the injury on the hand of the deceased attributed to the accused was hardly skin deep and it could not be caused by a `Chhuri' blow given with the intention of killing him. It is pleaded that when the statement of Muhammad Rafique complainant was recorded by the police, he was already in the possession of the M.L.R. And he could synchronise his statement with it and could assign any role to anybody. After the receipt of injuries the deceased had travelled 650 feet and then he had fallen on a `Charpai' in the enclosure (Waarra) of Muhammad Aslam P.W. And had the eye-witnesses seen this occurrence from the distance of 20 feet, as claimed by them, they would have tried to rescue the victim but there is nothing on the record to show that they did anything of that sort. Finally it is urged that Police Station Dijkot was situated at a short distance from Dichkot Hospital, where the injured was first removed, and if the brother of the deceased was busy in looking after him, the other persons of the village could go to the Police Station for lodging the report but nobody made any effort in that respect. There was no valid F.I.R. In this case nor any recovery was effected from the petitioner, the learned counsel adds.
6. The application has been opposed on behalf of the State on the ground that there is sufficient explanation in the F.I.R. Itself for its belated registration as the complainant had been busy in looking after his grievously injured brother. It is contended that the occurrence was witnessed by three persons including the complainant, and they are ready to support the prosecution version.
7. The injury attributed to the petitioner was located on the right palm of the deceased and being skin deep it was insignificant, obviously not contributing to the death of the deceased. Apparently the petitioner has no concern with the motive alleged in the F.I.R. Because it was the gun of a maternal-uncle of the co---accused, which had allegedly been stolen by the deceased who was being prosecuted therefor. The weapon of offence, namely, the `Chhuri' was not recovered from the petitioner, rather, as per learned State counsel, a `danda' was recovered from him by Inspector Naseer Ahmad Khan, formerly S.H.O. Of Police Station Dichkot, who had investigated this case. The F.I.R. Could be lodged earlier when the injured had been taken to Dichkot hospital and it was unnecessarily delayed. Being a night occurrence the identity of the accused could not be easily established.
8. For various reasons stated above, which are only meant for the disposal of this bail application, the petitioner is granted bail if he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50;000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner (Sadar)/Duty Magistrate, Faisalabad.
9. Copy `dasti' if requested for.
10. A copy of this order should be sent to S.S.P. Faisalabad, with the remarks that he should find out from Naseer Ahmad Lodhi now Inspector C.I.A., Faisalabad, formerly S.H.O., Police Station, Dichkot, as under what circumstances did lie, while investigating this case, recover a `Danda' from Abdul Sattar petitioner-accused when in the F.I.R. He was allegedly holding a `Chhuri' and caused an injury with it on the palm of the deceased, and if he furnishes no plausible explanation for this incongruity, suitable action should be taken against him for spoiling the case. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.