GHULAM SHABBIR Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Ghulam Shabbir petitioner is an accused person in case F.I.R. No. 246 registered at Police Station Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh on 20-5-1998 for offences under section 302/337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner and his two co-accused is that at about 12-00 noon on 20-5-1998 they had committed the murder of Noor Muhammad and had caused injuries to Mst. Zainab P.W. The petitioner was arrested by the local police in connection with this case on 7-6-1998. His application for post-arrest bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ali Pur vide order dated 10-2-1999. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the petitioner has not been attributed any injury to the deceased only a solitary injury to Mst. Zainab P.W. has been attributed to the petitioner. Admittedly Mst. Zainab P. W. was not present at the spot initially but she was attracted thereto upon hearing of noise. Even according to the F.I.R. itself the petitioner and his brothers did not entertain any serious motive against the deceased or the complainant party. Prima facie the F.I.R. itself contains the ingredients of a sudden fight without premeditation. The petitioner was not armed with any conventional weapon and the blow given by him to Mst. Zainab P.W. was never repeated. The question of vicarious liability of the petitioner for the offence of murder committed by his co-accused shall be gone into at the time of trial. The injury allegedly caused by the petitioner to Mst. Zainab P.W. attracts the provisions of section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. which carries a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment which does not attract the propitiatory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Ismail co-accused has already been admitted to post -arrest bail despite the fact that he had allegedly been instrumental in the murder of Noor Muhammad deceased. The case of the petitioner surely stands on a better footing than that of his co-accused Ismail. The challan in this case has already been submitted after finalization of investigation. Thus, physical custody of the petitioner is no longer required for the purposes of investigation. It is settled law that ball ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment.

3. Therefore, finding the case of the petitioner to be one of further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

N.H.Q./G-139/L

Ball allowed.