' Suba petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,223/95, dated 27-7-1995 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Police Station Chehlyak, District Multan, registered on the complaint of Riaz Hussain for the murder of Mst. Murida Bibi in an occurrence which took place on 27-7-1995 at 1-45 p.m. In the compound of Sessions Court, Multan. The petitioner along with his co-accused, all of a sudden emerged in the compound of Sessions Court and encircled Riaz Hussain complainant, Zahoor Ahmad, Muhammad Ramzan P.Ws. And Murida Bibi deceased. Allegedly, Suba petitioner caught hold of Murida Bibi and asked her to accompany but Murida Bibi refused to accompany them.
Thereafter Allah Ditta raised a Lalkara asking Majid to fire who consequently fired with a .32 bore pistol hitting beneath the left shoulder of Murida Bibi. She fell on the ground and Azam co-accused gave a blow with the butt of the pistol on her left cheek. He also fired in the air. Many people were, attracted to the spot. The accused decamped from the scene of occurrence and Murida Bibi expired there.
' The motive for the occurrence as stated is that Zahoor Ahmad P.W. Abducted Murida Bibi and thereafter both married each other against the wishes of parents of Murida Bibi and case of abduction was registered on the statement of Allah Ditta accused, the father of Murida Bibi. Zahoor Ahmad and Murida Bibi were nominated as accused and were released on interim pre-arrest bail.
2. Learned petitioner's counsel argued that co-accused Allah Ditta was granted bail with the same role and principle of consistency requires that the petitioner be also released on bail; that the petitioner has been involved on account of enmity and that petitioner was empty-handed at the time of occurrence and that he did not cause any injury either to the deceased or the P.Ws.
3. Learned complainant counsel and the State Counsel argued that as a matter of fact the petitioner is the main accused who started aggression and the occurrence was committed by the petitioner and his co-accused with premeditation and pre-concert and that the enmity stated is a double-edged weapon which is also likely to prompt the petitioner to commit the present occurrence and that the F.I.R. Was promptly registered in which the petitioner has been attributed a specific role in the commission of offence.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the record with care.
5. It is an unfortunate incident which took place in the Sessions Court premises. It is regrettable that sanctity of the Court's premises is being often challenged by the culprits. Litigant public has started feeling insecure in the Court's premises. It is the duty of law enforcing agencies to create an atmosphere of peace and enhance the sense of security in the mind of the litigant public at large and the officials of the Courts in particular. Similarly under trial prisoners are frequently attacked by their rivals either in the Court premises or on the way from jail to Court of vice versa. The helpless creature cannot defend himself being in handcuffs and under the custody of the police. State is responsible to safeguard the life of the citizens and particularly the under trial prisoners. The security measures are to be tightened more. Necessary steps are required to be taken immediately. The delinquents are to be dealt with iron hands, of course, in accordance with law.
Petitioner Suba has been attributed a specific role of initiating the occurrence. He is the one who caught hold of Murida Bibi deceased and forced her to accompany the accused and on her refusal, she was fired at by the co-accused of the petitioner. Prima facie it was in the knowledge of the petitioner that his companions Majid and Azam are armed with fire-arms. They emerged on the scene of occurrence together. They have a very strong motive to launch the attack. Prima facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed a non-boilable offence.
As far as the contention of the learned petitioner's counsel that case of the petitioner for grant of bail is at par with the case of Allah Ditta co-accused, has no force because he was granted bail on the ground that he was an old person and was found innocent during the investigation. Said Allah Ditta is attributed only a proverbial Lalkara with no overt act. His case is quite distinguishable from the case of the petitioner.
6. For what has been stated above, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail and resultantly this petition is dismissed. It is made clear that observations made by this Court in this order will not prejudice the trial Court in any manner who shall decide the case independently on the basis of evidence produced before it. A copy of this order be sent to D.I.-G., Multan for necessary action. He shall send a report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) within two months of the receipt of this order about the steps taken by him for implementation of directions given by this Court.