ORDER RAJA ABDUL AZIZ BHATTI, J.- Briefly the facts of the case are that Bashir Ahmad son of Sardar Khan resident of Sandal Bangyal lodged report at Police Station Gojar Khan vide FIR No. 113, dated 10.3.1995 at 12.40. Up. u/S. 302/34 PPC, to the effect that Muhammad Daud (Mehmood) son of Abdul Majeed armed with Churri, Waheed son of Abdul Waheed armed with Churri and Salamat the petitioner son of Abdul Majeed armed with Satya. All the three real brothers attacked Shaukat Mehmood aged 23 years in the street of village Sandal Bangyal. There are 12 sharp edged weapon injuries on the person of the deceased which are > attributed to Muhammad Daud and Waheed, whereas there is one blunt weapon injury on the left knee, simple in nature, attributed to Salamat accused/petitioner. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The occurrence witnessed by two other witnesses namely Khurshid Ahmad and Ali Raza. The motive for the crime is that Salamat the present petitioner was employed by the deceased and there was some dispute regarding the payment of the salary with the counter allegation that he committed theft and to that effect the matter was reported by Shaukat deceased to the police at Rawalpindi, wherefor Salamat petitioner was arrested but when he came on bail, he gave threat to the deceased and thereafter he with the help of his two real brothers committed murder.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the following grounds:-
(a) that Muhammad Daud and his mother were injured by the complainant party. But this fact has been suppressed in the FIR;
(b) that the nature of the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple caused by blunt weapon on non-vital part of the body; and
(c) that an application was submitted to the DIG Rawalpindi for registration of a case against the complainant party for causing injuries to a lady and Muhammad Daud co-accused of this case but so far : nothing has happened in this regard, according to his knowledge.
He also contends that investigation of this case has since been completed and the case is going to be fixed for trial. He relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) PLD 1995 SC 34
(ii) PLD 1995 Lahore 201
(iii) 1906 SCMR 489
(iv) 1982 SCM R 955
(v) 1986 P.Cr.L.J. 1098
(vi) 1977 P.Cr.L.J. 161
(vii) 1977 P.Cr.L.J. 204
3. Oh the other hand, .Sardar Muhammad Ishaq, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition. He maintains that the present petitioner is the principle accused in this case and he is responsible for the occurrence because the motive is attributed to him. Salamat accused/petitioner as per arranged for the attack. At his instance his two real brothers joined him and committed the present heinous crime. The role attributed to him in the FIR is supported by the medico-legal report. While making submissions regarding the injuries on the person of Muhammad Daud and his mother, learned counsel for the complainant states that supplementary statement of the complainant and the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded u/S. 161, Cr.P.C, just immediately after the occurrence fully explained the situation and specially with regard to causing injuries on the person of Muhammad Daud and his mother. He contends that during investigation the version put forward by the complainant with regard to these facts was not accepted and the accused have since been challaned to the Court for trial. The case is now fixed for framing the charge. Copies of the statements u/S. 161, Cr.P.C, and the other documents have already been supplied to the accused. He maintains that at this stage, the evidence is going to be recorded very soon, it will not be in the interest of justice to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Undoubtedly, Salamat, the petitioner is responsible for the occurrence with the help of his two brothers. The motive is attributed to him. After giving threat to the deceased, he arranged for the attack and at his instance his two real brothers accompanied him and caused number of injuries on the person of the deceased, which resulted in his death. There are total 12 injuries out of those 11 are sharp- edged weapon injuries. Only one injury is blunt weapon injury which is attributed to the present petitioner. The role attributed in the FIR to the petitioner is proved by the post-mortem report as well as the other circumstances of the case. Thus at this stage without dilating upon the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon 1986 SCM R 1681. In this case the motive was attributed and only threat (lalkara) was given by the accused and the bail was refused. The facts of this judgment of Honorables Supreme Court are identical. Thus dictum of the Honorables Supreme Court is binding upon him. For that reason, I have no hesitation to dismiss this petition. However, the observations made in this order shall not effect the merits of the case at the time of trial. The Trial Court is directed to disposed of this case at the earliest.