MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus State

ORDER

TARIQ SHAMIM, J .---Through this petition the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.94 of 2006 dated 10-3-2006, registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Narung, Sheikhupura.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and his co-accused Qaiser Mehmood while armed with rifle and gun respectively stopped the car in which the complainant as well as his father and other were travelling. Zafar and Abdul Haq accused, who were also armed with pistols, dragged the father of the complainant out of the car and took him to a field where all the four accused including the petitioner fired at Abbas Ali which hit him on various parts of his body as a result of which he died at the spot. Thereafter, his body was placed in a car by the accused and dumped in a field.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the story given in the F.I.R. was concocted and was, in fact, an afterthought; that the F.I.R. was delayed by three hours, hence the possibility of false involvement of the petitioner and other co-accused could not be ruled out; that during the investigation, the petitioner was found to be innocent and discharge report was also prepared, however, the learned Magistrate disagreed with the report and consequently, the challan was submitted in the trial Court; that no specific role or motive has been assigned to the petitioner, hence the case of the petitioner was one of further inquiry, who was entitled to the concession of bail. Relied upon the cases of Sheikh Ahmad Akbar v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Finance Division and 2 others (1990 SCMR 784), Muhammad Amin and others v. The State (1987 PCr.LJ 1404), Muhammad Amin and another v. The State (1987 SCMR 1522) and Fateh Muhammad v. Mst. Naziran Bibi and others (1988 SCMR 1492).

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that the petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role had been attributed to him; that the medical evidence was in conformity with the eye-witness account which further connected the petitioner with the prosecution case; that although the Investigating Officer had declared the petitioner innocent, however, the learned Magistrate after perusing the record came to a different conclusion and disagreed with the report submitted by the police; that serious allegation of murder had been levelled against the petitioner which was an offence punishable with sentence of death; that challan had been submitted in the trial Court and that at present there was sufficient evidence on record to connect him with the commission of the offence of murder, hence the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail.

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

6. The F.I.R. reveals that after the deceased had been done to death by the petitioner and his co-accused, his body was placed in the car and taken to his village where it was dumped in a field around 5-45 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged at 7-10 p.m. which is approximately after one hour and twenty five minutes. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a delay of three hours in lodging of the F.I.R., is thus not sustainable from the record as the F.I.R. was promptly lodged. The petitioner, who was armed with a rifle, has been named in the F.I.R. and specific role of firing at the deceased resulting in his death has been ascribed to him. The witnesses of the occurrence got their statements recorded before he police under section 161, Cr.P.C., further connecting the petitioner with the prosecution case. The post-mortem report is in conformity with the eye-witness account as the number of injuries mentioned therein are commensurate with the number of accused. Although during the investigation, the petitioner was found innocent by the police nevertheless the discharge report submitted pursuant thereto before the learned Magistrate was not agreed to which tends to show that the conclusions arrived at by the police were not found to be correct or sustainable under the law. The challan has been submitted in the trial Count and the trial is likely to commence in the near future. The offence of murder is punishable with death, hence keeping in view the evidence on record, it can be safely said that at present there is ample evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence of murder of deceased Abbas Ali, Reliance is placed on Muhammad Sadiq v. Sadiq and others (PLD 1985 SC 182). So far as the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the same are distinguishable on facts.

7. For what has been discussed above this petition being without force is dismissed.

H.B.T./M-564/L Bail refused.