CHHUTTA KHAN vs THE STATE

ORDER

' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.- Chhuta Khan petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 282 dated 13-10-2005 registered at Police Station Daajal, District, Rajanpur in respect of offence under section 365, P.P.C. After the death of Bajhi abductee, offences under sections 302/334, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C. Were added by the police.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. Registered at' the instance of Ghulam Farid complainant is that on 13-10-2005 he along with his brother, Bajhi deceased, had gone to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Jampur to attend proceedings of a murder case in which Bajhi (deceased) was involved. At 4-00 p.m. The complainant and Bajhi (slain) reportedly proceeded towards their home. On the way back to their home, when they reached near Joyia Chowk at 6-30 p.m. Four accused including the petitioner suddenly emerged at the scene while riding motor cycles. They forcibly lifted Bajhi and carried him away. The complainant along with other eye-witnesses statedly, followed the accused and after reaching Mauza Dandley Wala, in the light of the torch, they found Fazil co-accused and Chutta petitioner holding the legs of the deceased while Khameesa and Ghariba coaccused allegedly caused repeated piercing blows on his (deceased's) eyes with pointed weapons which were whipped out from their pockets. Thereafter all the accused decamped from the venue of the occurrence. Bajhi (deceased) was allegedly transported to the hospital by the complainant and other eye-witnesses but he could not survive and breathed his last on 15-10-2005. The apple of discord was stated to be that Bajhi deceased had murdered his wife and Nazar Hussain son of Khameesa co-accused on the allegation of "KARO KARI". Hence the F.I.R. Was registered.

3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the only allegation against the petitioner is that of getting hold of legs of the deceased at the time of occurrence and, therefore, his case needs further inquiry.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application tooth and nail on the grounds that it is not a case of simpliciter holding legs of the deceased at the relevant time but the petitioner along with other co- accused had actively participated in the cruel and brutal murder of the deceased by carrying him away on motor cycle and in this way he was fully involved in this case; that during investigation the motor cycle used in the crime had been recovered at the instance of the petitioner; that the trial of the case has started and five prosecution witnesses have already been examined and it is the accused party which is responsible for causing the delay in the trial. While exercising the right of the rebiftal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the case of the petitioner requires further inquiry, hence the start of the trial would not debar him from getting the bail. In this regard he has placed reliance upon the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 SC 585).

5. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and going through the record, I do not find myself in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as it appears that the petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence. According to the prosecution before piercing through the eyes of the deceased, the petitioner along with other co-accused had abducted the deceased in presence of the witnesses. During investigation, the motor cycle on which. The deceased had been transported was allegedly recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The deceased was brutally murdered by causing piercing injuries on his both eyes.

The.Gory story of the occurrence as narrated by the complainant is shocking, to say the least.

Prosecution case is getting full support from the statements of the eye-witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is accused of a crime carrying capital punishment. Besides that, the trial has already started and five out of 11 prosecution witnesses have already been examined.

At this stage it would not be proper to return findings touching the merits of the case as the same is likely to prejudice the case of either of the parties at trial. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Allah Ditta and others v. The State (1990 SCM R 307). The scope of term of further inquiry cannot be enlarged unnecessarily. As, according to my humble view case of further inquiry is not made out in favour of the petitioner, the case-law. Relied upon his behalf is pqt attracted to the facts of this case.

6. Consequently this petition is found to' be meritless and therefore, hereby, dismissed.