' This is an application asking for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,17, dated 19-2-2001 registered at Police Station Kotli Station, District Rawalpindi, under sections 302, 201 and 34, P.P.C.
2. The informant in this case is Abdul Latif who is an agriculturist and is the father of the deceased.
He has three sons and eight daughters. Four daughters and one son are married. According to whom, at about 7 p.m. On 18-2-2001 while he was present in his house with other inmates, Shabbir alias Shabbu, Muhammad Akram (the petitioner) came there arid took away his sons Israr Latif and Yasir Latif. That after some time, his younger son Yasir Latif returned home. He enquired from him about the whereabouts of Israr Latif, who informed him that Israr Latif has been taken away by Shabbir alias Shabbu and Muhammad Akram while informing that they are taking him away to the house of one Zahid, a resident of another village, where a marriage ceremony was taking place.
That on the morning of 19-2-2001 they learnt that the dead body of Israr Latif was lying in the Veranda of the house of Muhammad Ilyas co-accused. The complainant then alongwith other co- villagers and a Lumberdar went at the spot while the police also came there. In his complaint he alleged that his son Israr Latif had been done to death by Muhammad Ilyas, his wife through their son Muhammad Akram, the present petitioner, after inviting his son Israr Latif to their house and after the murder had kept the dead body in the Veranda of their house. Explaining the motive part of the story, it was said that the complainant and Haji Muhammad Ilyas were involved in a dispute of a land and on account of this dispute, his son Israr Latif has been done to death.
3. However, according to the version of the defence which emerged during investigation, the said deceased Israr Latif had illicit relations with the sister of the petitioner Muhammad Akram and that on the day of occurrence, the deceased alongwith two other persons trespassed into the house of the petitioner and went to the Charpai of Mst. Ayesha, sister of the petitioner, and while lifting her from there, took her upstairs. The noise so created woke up Muhammad Akram, the petitioner, who fired a shot at Israr Latif. It was also the story of the accused's side in their defence before the police that both the families had good relations before the occurrence. That there was no dispute over the land and that the allegations that Israr Latif was called to their house etc. Were not true.
4. The investigation in this case, when it was referred to Range Crime Branch, was entrusted to Inspector Range Crimes, Rawalpindi. Reference is made to his Zimni of 23-6-2001 in which he has stated that the petitioner Muhammad Akram, and his co-accused Haji Muhammad Ilyas, Mst.
Zubaida Begum and Mazhar Hussain had been involved in this case out of conspiracy. He believed the story as put forward by the defence while disbelieving what was stated by the prosecution. It was also stated by him that the allegation that the petitioner and his co-accused had also committed an offence under section 201 of the P.P.C. Was not established and the assertions made by the complainant's side in this respect were false.
5. It has been also stated by Mr . Muhammad Nazeer, Inspector, Range Crimes that his investigation was duly verified by the Halqa D.S.P. And the matter has been reported to the D.I.-G. Accordingly.
6. The Range Crimes had submitted a report to the D.I.-G. Which also reflected in paragraph 10 of the report, the role of Muhammad Akram, the present petitioner. This is based on a statement which is now to be construed as the first defence of the petitioner which he made before the police.
According to which, he was asleep on the night between 18th and 19th of February, 2001, and he heard a noise. He picked up the .12 bore licensed gun of his uncle and went on the roof top. Where he saw that a person was holding his sister. He addressed him, when the said person who is now the deceased, released his sister. That the deceased tried to search the folds of his Shalwar and he suspected that deceased was about to take out a weapon. He then fired at the deceased. This was single shot. On hearing the fire of shot, his mother and sister also arrived there and they tied the abdomen of the deceased and gave him water. That when his mother enquired as to why he was there, his reply was that he had come to take Ayesha with him and had the support of two other persons standing on the road. The petitioner went on to say that he had killed Israr because of family honour, and pleaded that rest of the accused were innocent.
7. It is the police case that the occurrence had taken place as was suggested by Muhammad Akram that it was middle of the night and the deceased had no business to be present there at that time without having an intention for committing an offence. That anyone who trespasses into someone's house with a desire of kidnapping a young girl or molesting her, the inmates have a right to check him and even cause him hurt if they apprehend any danger from him. It was further stated that normally people who take such risks are also armed and that deceased gesture while taking his hands towards the folds of his Shalwar, could give a reasonable apprehension to Muhammad Akram that he may be attacked. That, therefore, he was justified in firing. That he fired a single shot and was not brutal in this respect. That the mother and his sister provided the deceased with water and tied his abdomen which further reflects that there was no intention of killing him.
8. It has been further urged that the prosecution story has been belied by the successive investigations and the story, therefore, put up by the defence, is the only version in the field which will have to be either accepted in toto or not. There is weight in this argument.
9. It is also said that although the ipse dixit of the police is not binding on the Courts but of course it does help the Court in ascertaining whether the case was one of further inquiry until the matter was gone into threadbare through the process of trial particularly so when truth appears wanting in the private tales. The police investigation, consequently, has relevance at stages like that of bail.
But, of course, the police opinions are to be carefully taken and the circumstances are to be carefully weighed. This equally applies to parties in litigation.
10. Reliance has been placed on the following authorities:-- ' (1) 1994 PCr.LJ 924, (2) 1994 PCr.LJ 1020, (3) 1994 SCM R 1728, (4) 1992 SCM R 600, (5) 1993 SCM R 2288, (6) PLD 1996 SC 795 and (7) PLD 1997 Lah.
200.
11. Further reliance has been placed on the following authorities:--- ' (1) 1993 SCM R 208, (2) PLD 1994 SC 679, (3) PLD 1992 SC 287 and (4) PLD 1997 (sic) 259.
12. The co-accused in this case Muhammad Ilyas and Zubaida Begum, wife of Muhammad Ilyas, and Mazhar Hussain were enlarged on bail by this Court after hearing the ipse dixit of the police, on 9-7-2001.
13. The bail is opposed by the complainant's counsel on the ground that there was no justification even for honour killing. He has not been able to give any cogent reasons for the presence of the deceased at the place where he was done to death and also as to why the defence version believed by the Investigating Officers, should be discarded at this juncture.
14. The story of the prosecution that Israr was called by the petitioner and Shabbir alias Shabbu before he was done to death on account of a conspiracy, is a factum which has yet to be established because this story is not being believed. In the alternate, the prosecution side has also to establish as to what was the justification of the deceased to be present at the house of the complainant's side at that hour of the night. If there is no justification forthcoming, it will have to be seen as to what offence Muhammad Akram committed under the circumstances of the case and what would be the punishment for this offence in case the defence story ultimately succeeds. All this makes it a case fit for inquiry even as far as Muhammad Akram petitioner is concerned, and this Court allows him bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.