MUHAMMAD AKHTAR Versus State

ORDER

SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.-- Muhammad Akhtar (petitioner) seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 600 of 2011 dated 14-7-2011 for offences under section 302, 34 P.P.C. registered at Police Station Bhilthi (Sheikhupura).

2. Precisely, Zulfiqar Ali (complainant) informed the police that his sun Muhammad Shahbaz (deceased) was suspected of having developed an illicit relationship with Mst. Sonia Bibi, the daughter of Muhammad Akhtar accused (petitioner), the maternal grand-daughter of accused Khursheed and maternal niece of accused Mahboob and Mahfooz; with this suspicious state of mind, the above said accused deceitfully called Muhammad Shahbaz to their house where they committed his brutal murder and also killed Mst. Sonia Bibi at the spot.

3. Prior to it, Khursheed Ahmad, the maternal grandfather of Mst. Sonia Bibi had got registered case F.I.R. No.423 of 2011 dated 25-5-2011 under section 302, P.P.C. at the same Police Station with the assertion that his son-in-law Akhtar (petitioner), believing it a case of an illicit liaison between Mst. Sonia Bibi and Shahbaz, committed their murder and he was seen by him (complainant) with a gun in his hand, leaving the room wherein dead bodies of both the deceased lay.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the deceased were seen in a compromising position by the petitioner who is the father of Mst. Sonia Bibi and having lost, self-control, he committed the occurrence, which was a natural fall-out of the said immoral activity of the deceased; the petitioner was not supposed to garland Shahbaz deceased or his daughter for their shameless union and what he did at the crucial hour, was an act of righteousness; the petitioner is behind the bars since 25-5-2011 and his trial has not concluded so far; it is not a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder as, the deceased were not masoom-ud-dam; the case of the ' petitioner falls within the scope of recognized Exceptions of law.

5. On the other hand, learned Addl: Prosecutor-General Punjab assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the accused petitioner behaved himself in a callous manner at the time of occurrence and crime committed by him was a sheer brutality, which fell within the mischief of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the occurrence, allegedly committed by the petitioner is tragic, as two youths have been done to death for whimsical reasons by the accused-petitioner and his co-accused. The crime was firstly reported to the police by Khursheed Ahmad, the maternal grandfather of Mst. Sonia Bibi who nominated Muhammad Akhtar (petitioner), his son-in-law as the only perpetrator of the crime. A few months thereafter i.e. on 14-7-2011 Zulfiqar Ali, the father of Muhammad Shahbaz (deceased) got lodged second F.I.R. bearing No.600/1.1 (supra) about the same occurrence wherein he nominated four persons as accused including Khursheed Ahmad, the complainant of the previous F.I.R., Mahboob, Mahfooz and Muhammad Akhtar (petitioner) for having committed the above said occurrence. One thing is common in both the F.I.Rs. which relates to the factum, regarding development of illicit relations by both the deceased. The occurrence, admittedly, took place at the residential house of Khursheed Ahmad accused, hence, the probability that the matter reported by him to the police was nearer to truth, cannot be ruled out. The involvement of four persons, as named above, in F.I.R. No.600 of 2011 (supra) is however, subject to the scrutiny of the trial Court during the course of the trial. Even if the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner are believed as such, would it mean that the honour killing or murdering a person in the name of ghairat, stood legitimized, the answer to which, is a certain NO. It may be the defence plea of the accused at trial that he having lost self-control committed the crime under grave and sudden provocation but this is again a circumstance to be looked into by the trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties at trial. Deeper appreciation of evidence, at the bail stage, is not permissible under the law. The petitioner allegedly committed the crime in a cold-blooded manner. If such like act as committed by the petitioner, is approved of, it would lead to an anarchic situation in the society and lynching of accused would be the order of the day. The eye-witnesses still support the prosecution case. The offence, the petitioner is charged with catches the prohibition of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. There exists no reason to believe that the petitioner's case falls within the definition of further inquiry as defined under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Therefore, I am not inclined to allow this application which is dismissed accordingly.

MWA/M-228/L Petition dismissed.