1. [Lahore]Present: Chaudhary Khushid Ahmad, JMUHAMMAD ASGHAR KHAN and othersVersusTHE STATECriminal Misc. No. 156/B of 1995, decided on 14th March, 1995.Pakistan Penal Code, 1860--Ss.
2. 302/34-Bail-Petition for-FIR showed that both the petitioners had been attributed active role in the commission of crime-They were armed with deadly weapons which they had used effectively by causing fatal blows on the person of the deceased-Even motive attributed to them-It was a day time occurrence witnessed by the complainant who was also injured and his presence there could not be doubted-Held that: Tentatively at this stage there was no hesitation to say that reasonable grounds did east to believe that both the petitioners had committed the alleged crime-.(Paras 4,5)For the Petitioners: Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan, Advocate.For the State: Malik Khuda Dad Khan, Advocate.Date of hearing; 14th March, 1995.
3. ORDERCHAUDHARY KHURSH1D AHMAD, J.- Brief facts of the case are that Mst Nazir Begum lodged report at PS Pind Dadan Khan, District Jhelum, to the effect that on 16.6.1994 at Degarwela, eight accused, namely, Nazir Khan, Arshad, Badar Munir, and Muhammad Asghar all armed with 12 bore guns, Muhammad Afsar armed with Chhuri and Pistol, while the three lady accused Mst Salena, Mst Nasira and Mst. Parveen, empty handed, came to the alleged place of occurrence. Nazir Khan accused gave blow with the Butt of his gun on the head of Sajjad Haider son of Mst Nazir Begum complainant Asghar Khan also gave B blow on the head of Sajjad Haider. Similarly, Muhammad Afsar gave Butt blow his pistol on the head of Sajjad Haider. On receiving these injuries, he fell dot In that condition, Arshad and Badar Munir accused also gave Butt blews; c each on the person of Sajjad Haider. Thus, Sajjad Haider received injuries on head and eyes. According to FIR, all the accused gave number of Butt blows w their respective weapons. Sajjad Haider received injuries on his legs, arms, ch and head. Seeing'all this, the complainant iiiterfered whereupon Arshad a Badar Munir also gave Butt blows to her whereby she received injuries on mouth and back of her chest.
4. Mst Khalida and Mst Fakhar Abbasi beseached the accused did not agree to their request However, many men and women w< attracted to the site whereupon the accused ran away. The injured was taken the hospital Motive for the offence, as stated in the FIR, is that daughter of Muhamn Asghar contracted marriage with Sajjad Haider without the consent Muhammad Asghar etc. And for that reason they committed the crime.
5. It has further been stated that while going to the hospital the police met I complainant and report was lodged vide FIR No. 88 dated 16.6.94. Originally, I case was registered under sections 324/148/149 PPC but the same day, I injured Sajjad Haider expired and the into section 302 PPC.
2. Out of the male accused, Muhammad Asghar Khan and Muhamn Afsar have applied for bail after arrest. Learned counsel for the petitioners set bail on the following grounds:-
(a) that there is a conflict between the ocular account and foe medi evidence as there are no sharp-edged injuries on foe persons of I injured or the deceased;
(b) that it was a sudden affair and not a premeditated occurrence;
(c) that Muhammad Asghar was declared innocent during investigati and there is sufficient material in support of the finding of innocent Besides, he is aged 60 years;
(d) that Muhammad Afsar accused/petitioner suffered sharp-cdj injury which is dangerous to life.
6. This shows that there is a era version of the occurrence which, in fact, has been concealed by I complainant party; and.
(e) that Chhuri was alleged to have been used for causing injuries there is no such injury on the person of anyone; Learned counsel also contends that in foe given circumstances it cannot be & that any fatal injury has been attributed to foe petitioners because there number of injuries on the head of the deceased and it has not been made d which on6 injury was caused by either of foe petitioner.
7. In support of the hail petition, learned counsel places reliance on 3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposed the bail application vehemently and seeks its dismissal on the following grounds:-
(a) that contents of the FIR do show clearly that fatal injuries (on the head of the deceased) have been attributed to the petitioners;(b) that motive is attributed to both the petitioners because they are real brothers inter se and the marriage of Muhammad Asghar's daughter is a bone of contention for the commission of crime;(c) that it is a day-time occurrence witnessed by the injured complainant besides two others, who voluntarily supported the prosecution version. As such, all the accused have been found guilty during investigation. Regarding the finding of innocence about Muhammad Asghar Khan,learned counsel maintains that his nanv. Finds mp.Ntinn in ralnmn Nn3 of the challan. At some stage, I.O. Stated about his innocence but final finding with the approval of SDPO was not given in the matter; and (d) that as far as the injuries on the person of Muhammad Afsar petitioner is concerned, the complainant very clearly stated in the FIR that during the occurrence Muhammad Afsar accused also received injuries.4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the * record.From the contents of the FIR, it is evident that both the petitioners have been attributed active role in the commission of crime. They were armed with deadly weapons which they used effectively by causing fatal blows on the person of the deceased. Motive is attributed to the petitioners and fix' that matter it can be said that they are the principal accused. It is a day-time occurrence witnessed by the complainant, who is an injured witness, and his presence cannot be doubted Besides her, two others also witnessed the crime and supported the prosecution stand. Regarding injury on the person of Muhammad Afsar, it has been mentioned in the FIR that he suffered injury during the occurrence. FIR is not a document of details.
8. It is sufficient on the part of the complainant when she disclosed that Muhammad Afsar received injury during occurrence. I have perused the record pertaining to investigation. At one stage, I.O.
9. Stated that Muhammad, Asghar Khan was not present but this finding was not approved by the SDPO of the Area. As such, while preparing the challan, the name of this petitioner has been written in column No. 3 showing him as a regular accused. At this stage, it cannot be said that it was a sudden affair. Regarding conflict between the ocular and medical evidence, it will be suffice to say that as far as the petitioners are concerned, head injuries have been attributed to both the petitioners. Regarding other details, the matter can be thrashed out only during trial when the prosecution will produce evidence and the defence will avail fee opportunity of cross- examination.5. Tentatively, at this stage, there is no hesitation to say that reasonable grounds do exist to believe that both the petitioners have committed the alleged crime. As such, they are not entitled to bail. Bail petition is, therefore, rejected.