MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE

ORDER

A case was registered against the present petitioner under section 302, P. P. C. Vide F. I. R. No. 69/78 on 23rd June, 1978 with Police Station, Malika Hans, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal, at the instance of one Ghulam Muhammad, uncle of Mst. Phaman deceased. According to the F. I. R. The present petitioner inflicted injuries on Mst. Phaman deceased with a wooden bala. She was allegedly preparing mud in the bazar at Isha Wela on 22nd June, 1978. The motive attributed to the commission of offence of murder as stated in the F. I. R. Is that Muhammad Sharif petitioner was suspected to have stolen clothes of one Ahmad Din for which Mst. Phaman deceased abused him, and, simply on account of that grudge the present petitioner murdered Mst. Phaman.'

The petitioner applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, who turned down the request vide his order dated 6th August, 1979. The petitioner has now come up for the grant of concession of bail before this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits the occurrence with a quite different story. He has placed on record Annex 'C', certified copy of the complaint filed by one Abdul Majid son of Muhammad Ali, real brother of the present petitioner, against Mst. Phaman and Muhammad Hussain and another, under section 307/452/366/34, P, P, C. And Annex. 'D' certified copy of an interim order dated 14th October, 1978 passed by Magistrate section 30, Pakpatten Sharif in the aforesaid complaint.

A perusal of Annex 'C' discloses that the complainant party including Mst. Phaman deceased armed with sotas went to the house of the present petitioner, and forcibly dragged his daughter Mst. Jeejan to give her in a forced wedlock of Muhammad Hussain, real brother of Mst. Phaman, and accused in the complaint referred to above. This eventually led to fight, between the complainant party and the accused party of the instant case with the result that Muhammad Sharif petitioner sustained two injuries on head at the hands of Muhammad Hussain accused and Mst. Phaman deceased, who entered in the house of the petitioner and tried to abduct Mst. Jeejan, daughter of the petitioner. The venue of occurrence, accor--ding to the complaint, is the house of the present petitioner.

3. This complaint is now pending adjudication in the Court of Magistrate Section 30, Pakpattan Sharif, who after recording the summary evidence found Mst. Phaman deceased, Muhammad Hussain and another as accused persons under section 307/452, P. P. C. And summoned them as such vide Annex ---D'.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are two versions of the same incident; one is contained in Annex 'A' (F. I. R. No. 69/78) and the other is embodied in Annex 'C' (private complaint).

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State counsel and also perused the record carefully in the instant case. It is evident from the above material placed on the record that there are two cross versions i.e. One made by the complainant party and the other by the accused party. I am also conscious of the latest amendment made in section 247, Cr. P. C. By adding a further proviso which lays down that if the summons has been issued on complaint the accused will not be acquitted due to non-appearance of the complainant in case the offence of which the accused is charged is either cognizable or non-compoundable.

The private complaint admittedly relates to a charge which is cognizable and non-compound able, therefore, in view of the latest legal position there is no distinction between a private complaint and a registered case pertaining to cognizable or non-com pound-able offence.

6. The petitioner sustained two head injuries and the complainant party in the instant case has been summoned as an accused party vide Annex 'D' on the record. These factors provide a ground to hold that B there is prima facie probability that the counter version has also some truth in it. At this stage it cannot be said with a degree of certitude as to which side is aggressor, therefore, it is a fit-case of further inquiry as envisaged by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C. Reliance in placed on Rehmat Ali v. Hussain (1978 SCMR 195), Muhammad Shafi v. Hakam Ali (1978 SCMR 346) and Fazal Muhammad v. Ali Ahmad (1976 SCMR 391). The petitioner is, therefore, admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C./Illaqa Magistrate, Pakpattan Sharif, District Sahiwal.