HAKIM ALI AND 3 Others vs The STATE

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioners and two others are jointly accused of offences under sections 302/324/307/148 and 149, P. P. C. For the murder of Ghulam Rasul and for inflicting injuries to his companions, namely the complainant and two other eye-witnesses, on 2-6-1977. The petitioners' bail application was refused by the Sessions Judge and the High Court and they now seek leave to appeal from the order dated 20th June, 1978, of the Lahore High Court.

2. The principal argument in support of the plea for bail is that the fatal injury as well as other injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapons and according to the F. I. R. Are attributed to Muhammad Azam and Mian Khan co-accused who were armed with knives, the petitioners being empty- handed are not liable to be convicted for offences under section 302/307, P. P. C. But they are shown as accompanying Muhammad Azam and Mian Khan accused when they attacked the complainant part and there is a specific allegation against the petitioners that they clasped Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Afzal P. Ws. To enable and facilitate co-accused Muhammad Azam and Mian Khan to inflict knife injuries on their persons. As such, it is not possible to rule out, at this stage, their participation in the offences with which they have been charged.

3. It was next submitted that petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to bail under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr. P. C. As petitioner No. 1 was eighty years of age while petitioner No. 2 was over seventy years ; an entry from the birth register is produced showing that a son was born to Ghulam Muhammad on 2-4-1908. Reliance cannot be placed on this document vis-a-vis both the petitioners. Besides, the absence of the p.m of the new born on it makes it highly doubtful. It has also not been shown that these petitioners were sick or infirm to attract the concession of bail envisaged in the proviso aforesaid.

4. The petitioner further submitted that the first investigation by the Police had shown them as innocent and it was only subsequently that the Deputy Superintendent of Police ordered them to be treated as accused along with Muhammad Azam and Mian Khan. There were accordingly two versions and the petitioners' case was, therefore, one of "further inquiry" and covered by subsection

(2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. The petitioners' plea is misconceived. Merely because the D. S. P. Took a different view in the investigation and decided to challan the petitioners, it cannot be said that this is a case in which there are two versions by the prosecution.

5. An argument was also addressed on the point of delay in the recording of the F. I. R. And the time likely to be taken before the petitioners' trial commences. On the point of F. I. R. There is some explanation for the delay. This plea will, of course, be considered at the trial, As regards the delay in the commencement of the trial we do not find that the delay amounts to an abuse of the process.

6. Of the Court in this case. Besides, these grounds by themselves would not entitle the petitioners to the grant of bail.

7. The result is that this petition fails and is hereby rejected.