RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.- Altaf Hussain petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and others for offences ' under . Sections 302/307/148/148/109 PPC, with Police Station Samundari, District Faisalabad vide FIR dated 28.6.1990. The case was got registered by Muhammad Din for the murders of Muhammad Rafi, Muhammad Yaqoob and Tariq Munir, and murderous assault on nine others. The allegations as contained in the FIR are that on 28.6.1990 at about 3:30 P.M., the first informant with others was sitting under a tree, whereas Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad Siddique were busy watering their fields. In the meanwhile, the accused persons, who were eleven in number, came on a tractor-trolley and a suzuki-car. The said accused persons tried to divert the water towards their land, whereupon Mushtaq and Muhammad Siddique also came there to resist.
This led to the exchange of hot words between Zulfiqar and Mushtaq. In the meanwhile, on hearing the commotion, some other persons also came to the spot. Whereupon, Zulfiqar, co-accused raised a lalkara and fired hitting Tariq Munir on the chest, which was followed by Muhammad Tufail hitting Muhammad Yaqoob on the chest, and the second fire made by Muhammad Tufail also hit Muhammad Yaqoob. The accused persons kept on firing which resulted in the death of three persons, and injustices to others. After the commission of the offence, the accused persons went away with their respective weapons while firing indiscriminately. On 26.6.1990, Ghulam Ahmad and Ahmad Bakhsh, PWs, came to the house of Altaf Hussain petitioner, where Zulfiqar, Muhammad Tufail and Muhammad Ali were also sitting with Altaf Hussain. Within their hearing Altaf Hussain Petitioner told Zulfiqar, co-accused, that till such time Muhammad Yaqoob, Mushtaq and Tariq Munir were not murdered, they would not be able to use the sanctioned water. Muhammad Yaqoob is also alleged to have given thd same advice to them. Whereupon, Ghulam Ahmad and | Ahmad Bakhsh, PWs told Altaf and Muhammad Yaqoob that they had come on behalf of other Share-holders of water for a compromise but he was trying to widen the gap of enmity between them.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that admittedly the petitioner was not present at the spot. Contends that the only allegation against him is that he had abetted the commission of offence by advising the main accused to commit the murders of the other side.
Submits that the petitioner is a practising Advocate and he was on friendly terms with Zulfiqar, accused, as he used to appear in his cases, and for that reason he has been falsely involved.
Argued that there is no evidence available against the petitioner, except for the statements of Ghulam Ahmad and Ahmad Bakhsh in whose presence the petitioner is alleged to have abetted the offence. Argued that subsequently the police also recorded the statement of one Mushtaq Ahmad who had seen Zulfiqar accused coming to the house of the petitioner where the petitioner gave him a l2 bore gun and some cartridges, and thereafter on the same day he learnt about the incident, on the face of it, is an afterthought and concoction. Argued that it is unimaginable that a practising Advocate will abet the commission of such a heinous offence in the presence of the witnesses knowing fully well the implications. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant. According to them, the involvement of the petitioner is proved beyond any doubt as none of the witnesses deposed against the petitioner were inimical towards him. Submitted that the affidavits produced by the petitioner in favour of his defence duly sworn by the Advocates, would not be of much help to him because none of them claim to have been present at the spot when the alleged conspiracy was hatched.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and, gone through the police file. It is admitted that the petitioner was not present at the spot but he had only advised his co-accused for the commission of murders of the deceased persons. The said conspiracy had taken place on 26.6.1990 in the presence of two witnesses who happened to be present in the house of the petitioner. I feel it would be a case of further inquiry to determine whether the conspiracy could possibly be hatched in the presence of two witnesses who admittedly belonged to the other party. Even otherwise also, the evidence of conspiracy is quite inconsistent with the allegations contained in the FIR, according to which, first an altercation took place between the parties, and when the people belonging to the complainant side gathered there then firing started from the accused side. The other evidence of Muhammad Saleem against the petitioner is to the effect that on 28.6.1990 at about 2 p.m., he was present in front of his house when Zulfiqar and, Riaz, co-accused of the petitioner, came in a suzuki-car and asked him to find out if Altaf petitioner was at home. He called him. Whereupon Altaf Hussain talked to the said persons for a while, then went inside and brought a l2 bore gun and cartridges and handed them over to Zulfiqar, accused, and in the evening he learnt about the incident. During interrogation the complainant's assertion was that Altaf Hussain petitioner not only gave a l2 bore gun and cartridges. To his co-accused but also entertained them with refreshment this does not contain in the statement of the witness who saw him handing over the gun. In this case, there were 11 accused persons at the spot and each of them was armed with a gun. There is nothing on the record to indicate which of the gun was handed over by the petitioner out of the guns recovered from the accused persons. The petitioner in support of his innocence has produced the affidavits of a number of practising Advocates at Samundari, who have sworn with regard to his innocence. All these affidavits are on the police file.
3. For what has been discussed above, I fell it is a case of further inquiry which entitles the petitioner to the concession of bail. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Samundari. It is further observed that in case the prosecution is able to collect some other evidence against the petitioner, it may move for the cancellation of bail of the petitioner.