' Rehmat Ali petitioner filed this petition for the grant of bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,153, dated 7- 8-1995 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Malka Hans, District Pakpattan Sharif registered on the statement of Muhammad Yar complainant against Rehmat Ali petitioner and his co- accused Muhammad Arshad for an occurrence which took place on 7-8-1995 at 2-30 p.m. In the area of village Dhapai for the murder of his daughter Mst. Kalsoom Bibi wife of Muhammad Arshad co-accused, son of the petitioner.
2. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. That Kalsoom Bibi was married to Muhammad Arshad co-accused about 6 months ago and the relations between the two were strained. On the fateful day Rehmat Ali petitioner armed with .12 bore gun and Arshad co-accused armed with hatchet launched attack upon Mst. Kalsoom Bibi, Rehmat Ali petitioner allegedly raised Lalkara that Kalsoom Bibi be taught a lesson for the quarrel and wrapped a Safa around the neck of Mst. Kalsoom who fell on the ground and thereupon Arshad co-accused gave injuries on her chest with the wrong side of the hatchet.
The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Nawaz.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is the father of the co-accused Muhammad Arshad and he has been falsely involved on account of enmity and that the petitioner is an old man of 65 years who did not use his gun at the time of occurrence and according to the learned counsel, there was no necessity of putting a Safa around the neck of e deceased as the gun could have been effectively used from a distance and it is yet to be seen whether the petitioner had common intention to kill Mst. Kalsoom Bibi. Further argued that in the post-mortem report there was no ligature mark upon the neck of the deceased and the cause of death in this case was the blunt weapon injuries.
4. Learned Assistant Advocate-General argued that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With a specific role and he not only raised a Lalkara prompting his son to murder Mst. Kalsoom but also actively participated in the occurrence by putting Safa around the neck of the deceased and forced her to fall on the ground.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record produced by the police.
6. The motive for the occurrence as stated in the F.I.R. Was the dispute between the husband and the wife. The petitioner has no direct connection with the alleged motive. It is stated in the F.I.R. That petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun at the time of occurrence but admittedly, he did not use the same in the whole occurrence. Had he shared the common intention, he could have easily and effectively used his gun and there was no necessity to put a Safa around the neck of the deceased in order to lay her down on the ground. The petitioner had no independent motive to commit the offence. The co-accused had his own independent motive to commit the occurrence, so, prima facie there was no necessity for the petitioner to raise Lalkara and to ask his son Muhammad Arshad to teach a lesson to the deceased. The post-mortem report does not indicate any ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries caused by blunt weapon were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The ocular account and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are not fully in line with the medical account.
7. The petitioner had no independent motive to commit the offence, although armed with .12 bore gun, did not use it, at all. The ocular account was not fully in line with the medical evidence. In my considered view, all these Nictors lead to the conclusion that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has committed a non-bailable offence but there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt which entitles the petitioner for the grant of bail under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The question of applicability of section 34, P.P.C. Will of course be determined at the stage of trial by the trial Court.
8. For what has been stated above, the petition for the grant of bail isle accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in I the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of (dial Court/learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif.