' Haji Muhammad Asghar being accused in a case F.I.R. No,23, dated 16-3-1994 under section 302, P.P.C. With Police Station Dhudhial, District Chakwal has approached this Court for the grant of bail after refusal of the same by learned Sessions Judge, Chakwal vide order, dated 16-2-1995.
2. The occurrence took place on the night of 16-3-1994 and the matter was reported to the police on the same morning at 4-45 a.m. By Mst. Naseem Akbar complainant, wife of Muhammad Akbar deceased. According to the complainant, on the fateful night, the petitioner armed with .12 bore gun raised Lalkara saying that he would not spare Muhammad Akbar and asked him to come out of the house, whereupon Muhammad Akbar deceased came out of the house and on seeing him, the petitioner fired at him with his .12 bore gun which hit on his left eye. After receiving fire shot, Muhammad Akbar fell down. In the meantime, Mst. Sardar Begum, wife of the petitioner also came out of the room and ran towards the Haveli, upon which the petitioner also fired a shot on her which hit on her belly. She also fell down on the ground. Both the injured succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Motive behind the occurrence was that the petitioner suspected illicit relations between hi brother Akbar Ali and his wife Sardar Begum.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner committed the murder of his brother and wife out of "Ghairat" and under the impulse of grave and sudden provocation; the petitioner took this plea on the very first day of his arrest before the Investigating Officer and also persisted the same in investigation; the suspicion of illicit liaison with both the deceased is also mentioned in the F.I.R. And that hardly case of grave and sudden provocation under section 302(c), P.P.C. Has been made out, the maximum sentence of which is less than 10 years.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposed the grant of bail on the ground that on the night of occurrence prior to the incident, there was an altercation regarding partition of the house and they also hurled invectives to each other on account of the fact that the petitioner suspected illicit relations between the two deceased.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.
6. Admittedly, the occurrence took place in the midnight and no eyewitness from the locality was cited as P.W. The two eye-witnesses cited by the prosecution belong to the two different villages which are situated at a distance of about 45 k.m. From the place of occurrence. The petitioner claims to have acted under "Ghairat". From the bare perusal of the F.I.R., prima facie, it stands spelt out that the petitioner acted under "Ghairat". Learned counsel for the State has not been able to dislodge the impression created by the facts mentioned in the F.I.R., therefore, I do not find any justification to withhold the concession of bail to the petitioner who is behind the bars for the last about one year.
7. In the circumstances and without touching the merits and demerits of the case, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Chakwal.