MAIRAJ and another vs THE STATE

ORDER

' M. BILAL KHAN, J.-Mairaj and Shahbaz sons of Sikandar petitioners, seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.91 dated 26-2-2006, registered with Police Station Sadcjar Depalpur, District Okara for offences under sections 302, 148 and 149 P.P.C.

2. The case of the complainant Abdul Karim as narrated in the F.I.R. Was that he was a resident of Chah Bohrwala Dakhli, Tehsil Depalpur and was a cultivator; on 26-2-2006 about 6-15 a.m. In the morning he, his brother-in-law Muhammad Akram son of Sikandar and his uncle Muhammad Ismaeel son of Siraj Din were sleeping near heap of corncobs along with his (complainant) father Muhammad Siddique; as soon as they woke up for their Fajjar Prayer, Iqbal son of Faiz Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam son of Shahbaz, Shahbaz and Mairaj sons of Sikandar (petitioners) , both armed with .30 bore pistols, Muhammad Aslam alias Achhoo son of Ameer armed with .222 bore rifle, residents of Deh arrived there and raised a Lalkara that Siddique (complainant's father) would not be left alive; Aslam son of Shahbaz made straight fire at him which did not hit him; Muhammad Iqbal alias Baggi made fire with his pistol which hit Muhammad Siddique on his right eyebrow; Muhammad Aslam alias Gali son of Shahbaz fired with his pistol which also hit Muhammad Siddique on the right side of his nose; Mairaj fired with his pistol hitting his father on the chest; the fire-shot caused by Shahbaz petitioner also hit his father on the right side of the chest; Aslam alias Achhoo fired with his .222 bore rifle which hit Muhammad Siddiq on his bicep; all the accused persons fired at his father with their respective weapons causing injuries on various parts of his body who succumbed to his wounds at the spot; accused persons fled from the scene while raising Lalkara and declaring that they had avenged their enmity.'

' The motive according to the complainant was litigation between the parties. Resultantly the instant F.I.R. Had been recorded.

3. The petitioners were arrested on 6-10-2006 and are is. Custody ever since. Their application for post-arrest bail was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur, District Okara vide his order dated 6-2-2007. Hence the instant petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5. It has been observed that both the petitioners are duly nominated in the F.I.R. And the role attributed to them is that they had caused serious injuries to Muhammad Siddique deceased on his chest. The injuries attributed to the petitioners duly find mention in the post-mortem report of the deceased. Apart from the complainant the other eye-witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Have supported the case of the prosecution by fully implicating the petitioners.

During the course of investigation both the petitioners have raised plea of alibi; it was stated that Mairaj petitioner was in village Dola which is 15/16 Kilometers away from the place of occurrence whereas Shahbaz petitioner was attending a Mela about 200 yards away from the place of occurrence at the relevant time. This plea appears to have found some favour with the Investigating Officer, who chose to place the petitioners in Column No.2 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. However, it is an established legal position that ipsi dixit of the police is not binding on the Court. Even otherwise while granting bail in murder cases the Courts are generally reluctant to entertain plea of alibi unless the same is absolutely beyond question. I do not want to enter into further intricacies of the case or to make any observation on the quality of alibi raised by the petitioners as by doing so I would be encroaching upon the function of the trial Court. Suffice it to say that in view of the nature of allegation, the direct role attributed to the petitioners, their abscondence for six months after the occurrence and the fact that the complainant and the witnesses resolutely stick on to their version qua the complicity of the petitioners, I do not find it a fit case for the grant of bail.

6. Resultantly this petition stands dismissed.