ZAFAR Versus STATE

ORDER

Petitioner stands arrested in case F.I.R No.400, dated 15‑4‑1998 under sections 302 and 324/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Tandlianwala District Faisalabad.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that petitioner Zafar alongwith Lall and Sikandar are said to have participated in the occurrence in which Mst. Moondan Bibi was murdered whereas Mukhtar Ahmad P.W. was injured. The petitioner Zafar has been specifically assigned the role of causing injury to Mukhtar Ahmad P.W. whereas Lall has been assigned the role of causing fatal blow to Mst. Moondan who later on succumbed to the injuries. Sikandar has been attributed role of simple Lalkara.

3. Petitioner applied for bail after arrest which relief was declined to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide order, dated 22‑1‑1999. Hence the instant petition.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that complainant has involved the petitioner alongwith Lall and Sikandar for the commission of offences charged against them, that as a result of investigation conducted by D.S.P. Tandlianwala both Lall and Sikandar have been found innocent, that the present petitioner has been assigned the role of causing an injury on the person of Mukhtar Ahmad P.W. and no part has been attributed to him in respect of causing any injury on the person of the deceased, that as out of three accused two have been found innocent, so the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. In support of his contention he has relied upon Sher Muhammad and 2 others v. The State and 4 others (1994 SCMR 549) and Khadim Hussain and others v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 930). He, thus, submits that petition may be accepted and he may be admitted to bail.

5. Conversely the bail application has been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. His contention is that petitioner has been specifically named in the F.I.R., and a specific role has been attributed to him. He further contends that petitioner was arrested on 26‑4‑1998 and led to the recovery of .12 bore gun on 10‑5‑1998. However, he submitted that as a result of investigation conducted by D.S.P. Tandlianwala co- accused of the petitioner Lall and Sikandar have been declared innocent vide case diary, dated 13‑5‑1998. He further submits that challan has been submitted against the petitioner only and his co‑accused Lall and Sikandar have not been sent up to the Court for trial.

6. A perusal of the contents of F.I.R. reveal that instant petition has been assigned the role of causing injury on the left elbow of Mukhtar Ahmad P.W. whereas his co -accused Lall has been attributed fatal injury on the person of Mst. Moondan and his third co‑accused Sikandar has simply been attributed Lalkara. As a result of investigation conducted by D.S.P. Tandlianwala both Lall and Sikandar have been found innocent and as such they have not been sent up for trial: The petitioner has simply been attributed an injury on the person of Mukhtar Ahmad P.W. and no part has been assigned to him for causing any injury to the deceased.

7. Since out of three accused two have already been declared innocent by the Investigating Agency so this fact alone makes the case of the petitioner open for further enquiry. Accordingly petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

N.H.Q./Z‑73/L Bail allowed.