' Abdullah Hussain alias Abdullah Aslam son of M. Aslam seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R.
No,261 with Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore on 16-5-2001 under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C.
For the murder of Yasin Ejaz and murderous assault upon Majid Raza.
2. Allegation contained in the first information report authored by one Kashif Ejaz is that his brother Yasin Ejaz was betrothed to Shaista Aslam daughter of his aunt which was against the wishes of the petitioner who had threatened him a number of times that he would take revenge for the engagement with his sister. On the fateful day at 7-30 p.m.. It is stated, that the first informant alongwith Yasin Ejaz, Azam Ejaz and Khurram Ejaz, all four brothers, in the company of one Majid Raza were sitting in an open plot opposite Duty Free Shop at 15-Abbot Road near Janki Devi Hospital, when Abdullah Aslam alongwith an unknown person armed with a mauser made a sudden appearance and the unknown person -was exhorted by the petitioner that Yasin Ejaz be taught a lesson for getting himself engaged with his sister. The unknown person complying with his direction opened fire upon Yasin as well as Majid Ejaz as a result of which they were injured; thereafter they were shifted to the hospital. It is stated that the unknown person who decamped after the occurrence can be identified if brought before them.
3. Post-arrest bail of the petitioner was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 2nd of June, 2001.
4. Learned counsel vehemently contended that in the first instance the motive alleged in the,F.I.R.
Has been disproved as Shaista Aslam sister of the petitioner and Nusrat mother of the petitioner have sworn affidavits that the deceased was never engaged with Shaista Aslam and further the role ascribed to the petitioner is only that of lalkara. He has relied on the cases of Muhammad Sadiq and another v. The State reported in 1996 SCM R 1654, Rafiq Khan v. The State (1995 SCM R 343) and Muhammad Latif v. The State (1989 PCr.LJ 1000) in support of his arguments that even in the case of firing by a person raising a lalkara, the apex Court was pleased to extend him the facility of post-arrest bail. Lastly it was contended that the petitioner is in judicial lockup which means that he is more required for the purpose of investigation by the police, therefore, it was prayed that he be allowed bail. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for the complainant stated that there was strong motive to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence as the same has been proved through letter written by Mst. Shaista Aslam to the deceased and that it was not a case of simple lalkara more or less the petitioner was the main accused commanding an unknown person to fire at the deceased and injured the witness. Finally it was urged that on the same day a supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded wherein he stated that a day earlier father of the petitioner alongwith the petitioner were conspiring to kill Yasin Ejaz deceased and in pursuance of the conspiracy a tangible act was done, resulting in the death of the deceased. Learned counsel for the State toed the line of the learned counsel for the complainant and urged that it was not a fit case where the discretion should be exercised in favour of the petitioner.
5. I have gone through the record and listened intently to the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Petitioner has been levelled with the allegation of raising a lalkrara. How far his role facilitated the unknown person to fire at the deceased and to commit a murderous assault on the injured is yet to be determined by the Trial Judge. As far as evidence of conspiracy is concerned, same is not mentioned in the F.I.R. And there was a supplementary statement recorded on the same day regarding the alleged conspiracy, which this Court has always viewed with suspicion because it always misleads the course of justice. I see eye to eye with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in judicial lock-up and he is no more required by the Police for investigation and there is no allegation tampering with the record, as such. Petitioner has been successful in making out a case of further inquiry and probe resultantly, I accept the application and enlarge the petitioner on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.