' Rafaqat Ali and Muhammad Yasin, the petitioners have sought for after - arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,139, dated 15-6-2002 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Sahu Ka, District Vehari.
' Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 15-6-2002 at about 11-00 a.m. Khadim Hussain, the tractor driver of Ch. Muhammad Tufail was ploughing with tractor his land in Square No,47, Killa No,19 and 20. Muhammad Iqbal and Safdar Hussain were standing in the nearby cotton crop. All of a sudden, Shafaqat Ali armed with pistol .30 bore, .Rafaqat Ali with Sota and Yaseen came there.
Shafaqat Ali asked Muhammad Iqbal to hand over them the keys of the house situated in Green Town, Burewala. There is dispute between the parties in respect of the same. Muhammad Iqbal refused to do so. Thereupon, Shafaqat Ali and others and Muhammad Iqbal started abusing each other. In the meanwhile, Khadim Hussain stopped his tractor and came to there and tried to separate them. Shafaqat Ali fired with .30 bore pistol at him' (Khadim Hussain) hitting him on his abdomen. Rafaqat Ali and Muhammad Yaseen raised Lalkara that he be taught lesson for helping Muhammad Iqbal. The complainant and Safdar Hussain witnessed the incident. They when tried to come forward Shafaqat Ali fired with his .30 bore pistol on them but they luckily were saved.
Khadim Hussain succumbed to his injury at the spot.
3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in; that petitioner No,2 Muhammad Yaseen was empty-handed at the time of incident as per prosecution story and Rafaqat Ali with Sota but they did not commit any overt act; that in fact the complainant party has beaten them and that is why 24 injuries on the person of petitioner No,1 and 4 injuries on petitioner No,2 and 41 injuries on Shafaqat All co-accused were found on their medical examination; that there is cross-version from their side but the police did not listen them; that they had no motive directly to kill the deceased; that the question of their sharing common intention is to be determined at the time of trial; and that they are behind the bars for the last six months.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that they have raised Lalkara and so have facilitated their co-accused Shafaqat Ali to do away with the deceased; that in fact the villagers had beaten them and not the complainant party; that Sota has been recovered from petitioner No,1 Rafaqat Ali; and that they have shared the common intention with their co-accused Shafaqat Ali in murdering the deceased.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. Rafaqat Ali petitioner No,1 as per FIR. Was armed with Sota but he did not cause any injury to the deceased. Petitioner No,2 Muhammad Yaseen admittedly was empty-handed at the time of incident. Mere Lalkara has been ascribed to them in the commission of the crime and no overt act.
7. The question of their sharing common intention with their co-accused in the murder of the deceased is to be seen at the trial. Their case, thus is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Requiring further inquiry into their guilt. They are behind the bars for the last about six months and stated to be previous non-convicts.
8. In these circumstances, they are entitled to bail. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit them to bail provided they furnish bail Bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.