MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs THE STATE and another

ORDER

MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Muhammad Afzal petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case registered on the complaint of Muhammad Yar vide F R. No. 225 dated 16-9-2010 under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Takht Mahal, District Bahawal Nagar.

2. Succinctly, the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R. Are that on the day of occurrence, i.e. 16-9-2010 at about 11-30 a.m. When complainant along with his brother Allah Yar deceased were proceeding towards the field from where they had to cut fodder and when reached near the Bajra crop, where Muhammad Zafar, Muhammad Azhar and Khan Muhammad, etc. Were quarrelling. After hearing the noise, complainant along with his brother Allah Yar deceased reached near them, whereupon, Falak Sher, Muhammad Riaz and Muhammad Safdar co-accused raised a Lalkara that Allah Yar deceased be fired at. In the meanwhile, co-accused Khan Muhammad while armed with .12 bore gun, Irshad armed with .12 bore gun, Muhammad Afzal (petitioner) armed with .12 bore gun, Muhammad Mansha armed with pump action and Ahmad Ali armed with .12 bore pistol came at the spot. It has further been alleged that Khan4Muhammad co-accused made a gunshot hitting on the neck of Allah Yar deceased and then Muhammad Irshad made a fire shot with his gun hitting on the right arm of the deceased. Thereafter, Muhammad Afzal (petitioner) caused fire shot with his gun which hit on the right thigh of the deceased, whereupon Allah Yar fell to the ground after sustaining injuries. It has also been alleged that Muhammad Mansha and Ahmad Ali co- accused have caused straight firing on the complainant who also sustained injuries in the occurrence. Allah Yar deceased was being taken to the hospital in an injured condition but he succumbed to the injuries while reaching to. DHQ Hospital, Bahawal Nagar. Hence, the case.

3. In support of this bail petition, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the role ascribed to the petitioner has been contradicted by the post-mortem examination report of the deceased, as according to the allegation, injury No. 3 is attributed to the petitioner whereas post-mortem examination report shows that injury No. 3 is incised wound at the right thigh of the deceased and this contradiction by itself makes the case of the petitioner to be of further inquiry.

Therefore, petitioner may be granted bail.

4. Learned D.P.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed bail petition on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; specific role has been ascribed to him and he has been imputed motive; the offence with which the petitioner has been charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.; trial has commenced; and at this stage it is not appropriate to go into the merits of case for the disposal of bail petition and the same may be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6. Although specific gunshot injury, hitting on left thigh of the deceased, has been attributed to the petitioner whereas the post-mortem examination report reveals that on the left thigh injury No. 3 is located and the same is incised wound. This grave contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence prima facie makes the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry. Hence, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.