Tahir Shah, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No.72 dated 24-2-2002 under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 23-2-2002 at about 6-00 p.m. Bakhtawar complainant, Muhammad Yousaf, Sajawal and Nawaz were sitting in the courtyard of the house of Muhammad Nawaz son of Sikandar. The electric bulb was lit there. Ahmad Ali, Muhammad Nawaz and Ijaz sons of Sikandar were also present there.
All of a sudden Fazal Shah armed with 7 MM rifle, Taqi Shah with .12 bore repeater, Tahir Shah (petitioner) with .30 bore pistol, Noor Shah with hatchet, Ameer Shah with .12 bore gun, Manzoor Shah with .12 bore gun, Nasir Shah with hatchet and Shahadat with gun entered into there. Fazal Shah raised Lalkara that Sajawal etc. Be not spared. Thereupon Taqi Shah fired with .12 bore repeater hitting Sajawal deceased over his ankle of the left leg. Fazal Shah fired straight shot with 7 MM rifle hitting Ahmad Ali on his abdomen. Tahir Shah (petitioner) fired with .30 bore pistol hitting Ahmad Ali on his right side of the head. Fazal Shah fired at Muhammad Yousaf but he got aside and was saved. Thereafter, they resorted to firing. Muhammad Yousaf snatched hatchet from Noor Shah and in self-defence caused injuries with the blunt side of the same to Fazal Shah and Noor Shah on their noise and report of fires many residents of the village were attracted to the spot.
Sajawal and other injured were carried to the hospital. Sajawal succumbed to his injuries on reaching the gate of the hospital. Ahmad Ali was admitted in the hospital while Muhammad Nawaz referred to Lahore due to his precarious condition. Ahmad Ali too succumbed to his injuries subsequently.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that the accused had suspicion of illicit relation of Meraj Bibi, their close relative with Sajawal deceased
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has been roped in that he has been ascribed fire shot with .30 bore pistol to Ahmad Ali deceased hitting on the right side of his head while no injury was found on his head on his post-mortem examination; that the complainant in his supplementary statement dated 24-2-2002 had also accused him of having fired at Muhammad Nawaz injured hitting on the right side of his head while he had only one injury with sharp---edged weapon on his head and so there is conflict between the ocular and the medical evidence; that a cross-complaint in respect of the alleged incident was made in which the complainant party was summoned as accused; that the complainant party in the cross---version have been allowed bail; that it is yet to be seen that who was aggressor and who was, aggressed upon and hence the case against him essentially calls for further inquiry into his guilt and so the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that he is behind the bars; and that he is previous non- convict.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he had fired with .30 bore pistol hitting Ahmad Ali deceased on the right side of his head; and that the offence is not only heinous in nature but also covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. According to the F.I.R., he has fired' straight shot with pistol at deceased Ahmad Ali hitting on the right side of his head. But surprisingly enough on the post--mortem examination of the said deceased no injury on his right side of the head was found.
8. The complainant in his supplementary statement of the same date i.e. 24-2-2002 has also accused him of having fired at Muhammad Nawaz injured hitting the same at the right side of his head while on his person no such fire-arm injury was found on his medical examination. He has only one sharp-edged weapon's injury on his head.
9. So, apparently there is conflict in the narration of the F.I.R. And the post-mortem report of Ahmad Ali deceased and medical report of Muhammad Nawaz injured.
10. Besides than this, statedly there has been brought forth cross-version of the alleged incident from their side and in the same complainant party was summoned to face trial and was granted bail.
11. So, it is also yet to be seen that who was aggressor or who was aggressed upon. Hence, the case against him is certainly covered under subsection (2) of section 497. Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into his guilt.
12. Allegedly he had remained absconder for some time. His alleged abscondence will not come in his way to the grant of bail, when even otherwise, his case has been found fit for bail being one of further inquiry.
13. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict.
14. I, therefore, find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
15. I, therefore, accept this petition admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.