' This is a petition for bail on behalf of Muhammad Naseer petitioner against whom and two others a case under sections 302/307, read with section 34, P. P. C. Has been registered at Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore on 19-8-1975, for the murder of one Mir Muhammad Ahsan alias Achha and injuries to Muhammad Jahangir.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as disclosed in the F. I. R. Are that on the day of occurrence the complainant Niamat Ali along with Mir Muhammad Ahsan alias Achha deceased went to District Courts, Lahore in connection with a case under section 325/34, P. P. C. In which they were being prosecuted at the instance of Mst. Sultan Bibi, grandmother of the petitioner. In the District Courts some altercation took place between Muhammad Munir accused and the deceased but the people pacified the matter. At about 1 p.m. When the complainant alongwith the deceased and the injured person were returning to Kot Khawaja Saeed and had reached near Dhobi Gbat, Chah Miran Road in a tonga, the petitioner is alleged to have caught hold of the reins of the horse yoked in the tonga and stopped the tongs. He raised a lalkara that Achha should not escape. On this the deceased jumped from the tonga and tried to run away but the petitioner after leaving the reins of the horse caught hold of the deceased from the neck and Munir, co-accused of the petitioner, gave a spear blow in the abdomen of the deceased. Nisar Beg, another co-accused of the petitioner, gave spear blow to Muhammad Jehangir. The first informant raised a lalkara on which Muhammad Hasan son of Umar Din and Lal Din alias Lala son of Ilam Din attracted to the spot and they had witnessed the occurrence. The accused left the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this bail application contended that the petitioner was empty-handed and no injury is attributed to him either to the deceased or the injured person, therefore, he is entitled to the grant of bail. It was also submitted that eye-witnesses in the case are not only interested in the complainant party but they are also inimical towards the accused and no reliance can be placed on such persons especially when they are residents of a far off place and are Wajtakkar witnesses only.
4. Learned counsel for the State strenuously submitted that it was the petitioner to facilitate the crime by holding the deceased from his neck and that at any rate the petitioner was present at the spot, had the common intention with his cc-accused in the commission of the crime, therefore, he is not entitled to the grant of bail especially the offence with which the petitioner is charged is punishable with death or life imprisonment.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and ongoing through the record I feel that this petition is bound to fail. According to the allegations in the F. I. R. It was the petitioner who caught hold of the deceased from his neck and thus facilitated the commission of the crime. The co- accused of the petitioner was armed with a spear each and it cannot be said that the petitioner was not present at the spot or that he had no common intention with his co-accused.
6. So far as the eye-witnesses are concerned, at this stage nothing can be said about the evidence of the eye-witnesses. It would be for the trial. Court to see the veracity of the evidence which shall be produced before it. This Court in these proceedings cannot judge the veracity of the witnesses especially when the trial has not started so far. Prima fade, reasonable grounds exist to believe that the petitioner has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment.
7. For the aforesaid reasons I see no force in this petition which is hereby dismissed.