The petitioner and four others were proceeded against vide F.I.R. No.50/94 dated 2-4-1994 under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. P.S. Naushera Jadid, District Bahawalpur.
2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. Lodged by Allah Ditta complainant briefly stated is that complainant's sister Mst. Surrya Perveen was divorced by her previous husband Shah Muhammad resident of Dera Gazi Khan. She had three daughters from that wedlock out of which Mst. Zakia Bibi had already been married and for the hands of the remaining two i.e. Mst. Sabiha Mai deceased and Mst. Naeema Mai, Nabi Bakhsh the petitioner and Hafeez Ullah co-accused had been pressing her. Nabi Bakhsh petitioner is stated to be paternal uncle of Mst. Sabiha and Mst. Naeema whereas Hafeez Ullah co--accused is brother of the complainant. It is further alleged that against the wishes of petitioner and his co-accused Hafeez Ullah, Mst. Surrya gave the hands of her afore- referred two daughters to the sons of the complainant over which Nabi Bakhsh and Hafeez Ullah were annoyed. They threatened the complainant that they would kill Mst. Sabiha Mai and Mst.
Naeema Mai. On the fateful day and time, the complainant alongwith his two sons Sana Ullah, Raza Ullah and Mst. Sabiha deceased were going to Ahmad Pur East. As they reached near Village Jindwada Qureshi, Nabi Bakhsh armed with .12 bore gun, Dost Muhammad armed with a revolver, Noor Muhammad armed with a dagger, Wahid Bakhsh armed with a dagger and Hafeez Ullah armed with .12 bore gun ambushed them. They raised a Lalkara that Mst. Sabiha would not be spared. Mst. Sabiha Mai started running and all the accused chased her for one and a half acre.
Mst. Sabiha took refuge in a wheat crop whereupon Nabi Bakhsh petitioner and Hafeez Ullah co- accused fired at Mst. Sabiha with their respective guns whereupon she fell down. Thereafter Wahid Bakhsh and Noor Muhammad accused gave dagger blows in consequence of which she died at the spot. Having done that, accused Dost Muhammad, Nabi Bakhsh and Hafeez Ullah raised Lalkara that Mst. Naeema shall also meet the same end. They ran towards complainant's house. They entered the house and again raised lalkara that Sabiha has been done to death and Mst. Naeema shall also be taught a lesson for marrying of her own free will. Dost Muhammad fired at Mst.
Naeema with his revolver and she fell down. The people from the neighbourhood gathered there but the accused threatened them that if anybody came near them, he shall not be spared.
Thereafter all the accused decamped from the spot.
3.Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the following grounds: ---
(i) that post-mortem report indicates that there were four 'Khanjar' blows on the person of Mst.
Sabiha Mai and there was only one fire-arm injury. This would indicate that only one shot was fired at her and as all the eye-witnesses have not specifically named as to whose fire hit Mst. Sabiha, therefore it would be a case of further inquiry. Relies on Madar A.I alias Muhammad A.I Khan and another v. The State (1991 M LD 2564) and Shafqat alias Ghunga and 2 others v. The State (1994 SCM R 1680) to press the afore-referred argument;
(ii) that it is repellent to common sense that petitioner would fire at his real nieces. If he was unhappy, the most natural victims of his attack would have been Sana Ullah and Raza Ullah who were allegedly present at the spot but none of them was attacked at that time;
(iii) that the challan is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted as follows:---
(i) that the petitioner is a close relation of the complainant and his co---accused Hafeez Ullah is his real brother. It is not believable that the complainant would falsely involve his close relation on a charge of murder;
(ii) that the FIR was lodged promptly. As it was a day light occurrence, this would by itself rule out the possibility of false implication or mistaken identity;
(iii) that during investigation, the petitioner led to a .12 bore gun and the police also secured a crime empty which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and the report received is to the effect that the empty was fired from the gun which was recovered from the petitioner;
(iv) that the petitioner was a member of an unlawful assembly and he is vicariously liable even if he is not attributed any specific injury.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with the assistance of learned State Counsel.
6. The occurrence took place at 9-00 a.m. And the FIR was lodged at 11-00 a.m. Although the police station is 19 kilometres from the place of occurrence. All the accused including the petitioner have been specifically named. A specific motive has been attributed to them. It is repellent to common sense that the complainant would falsely implicate his blood relations on a serious charge of homicide. The allegation levelled against the petitioner that he chased Mst. Sabiha, fired and caused her death and thereafter ran towards Mst. Naeema betrays the morbid criminal intent taken to its unfortunate logical end. A gun has also been recovered from him and the empty recovered from the spot was found to be matching with the same. He is connected with the motive part of the prosecution story as well and there is no reason as to why the complainant should falsely implicate him. No enmity has been referred to even during the course of arguments. I have gone through the precedent case-law referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner and have found that the judgments in those cases are distinguishable. For instance, in Madar A.I alia, Muhammad A.I Khan and another v. The State (1991 M LD 2564), the allegation against the accused who were granted bail was that the commanded the principal accused to open fire on the deceased and no empty was recovered which could have matched with the weapon of crime.
Similarly, in Shafqat alias Ghunga and 2 others v. The State 1994 SCM R 1680), the charge against the accused was that the ineffectively fired at the complainant and not at the victim of attack. In the instant case, the accused is not only connected with the motive part of the prosecution story but he is charged with firing at the deceased. He also led to the recovery of crime weapon and the empty secured from the spot was also found matching with the gun.
7. For what has been discussed above, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed.