' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,128, dated 7-11-1996 for offences under section 302/34/109, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Kot Ladha, District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 6-11-1996 at about Ishawela Muhammad Yousaf husband of the complainant went to his Dear for sleeping. At about 11-00 p.m. Complainant was informed that accused Saif Ullah alias Kalu, Ijaz Ahmad, Riaz Ahmad and Muhammad Nawaz all sons of Noor Muhammad, at the behest of Noor Muhammad and Rehmat had murdered Muhammad Youssef after taking him in the field of sugarcane belonging to one Muhammad Abbas situated within the area of Nokhar. The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by Ghulam Muhammad and Nasal P.Ws. Motive behind the occurrence is stated to be that one Muhammad Nawaz, real brother of the complainant, had been residing with the deceased and had developed illicit relations with Mst. Shabana sister of the accused and to take revenge of that the instant incident has taken place.
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that complainant is not an eye-witness of this occurrence that no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner, that there are contradictions in the medical evidence visa-a-visa the ocular account given by the eye-witnesses, that the petitioner was arrested on 9-12-1996 and is in jail for the last one year and seven months, that trial has not yet started, that fatal injury No,2 on the person of deceased is not attributed to the petitioner, that in case of contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence, benefit has to be extended to the accused and relied upon Waroo v. The State 1980 PCr.LJ 789. He further submitted that mere allegation of murder against an accused is not sufficient evidence to disentitle him to the relief of bail and relied upon Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K)
14. He, thus, submitted that petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Conversely the petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. He contended that appraisal of medical evidence with ocular account amounts to deeper appreciation of evidence which is not warranted by law at bail stage and petitioner cannot claim any benefit on that score He submitted that petitioner has been assigned the role of causing firearm injury to the deceased which stands corroborated from post-mortem examination report. He thus, submitted that all these facts disentitle him to the relief sought by him.
5. Petitioner alongwith Saif Ullah alias Kalu, Ijaz Ahmad and Muhammad Riaz stands charged for committing the murder of deceased. Accused Saif Ullah alias Kalu is absconder, whereas Muhammad Riaz accused has been declared innocent and Ijaz Ahmad accused has been granted bail by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner has been assigned the role of causing injuries on the back as well as on the head of the deceased. As per post-mortem examination report the fatal injury is No,2 which is attributed to Saif Ullah alias Kalu since absconder. As per post-mortem examination report injuries Nos.4, 5 and 7 are exit wounds and others are wounds of entry. This factual position creates discrepancy between the ocular account and medical version. Although deeper appreciation of evidence at this stage is not warranted by law, yet tentative assessment is not precluded. It is also admitted position that petitioner is in jail for more than 1-1/2 years and trial has not started. Keeping all these facts in view, we allow the petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.