MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus THE STATE
A case under sections 302, 342/34 P.P.C. was registered against the petitioner and some others with Police Station Sallianwali, District Sargodha, vide F.I.R. dated 12‑2‑1988. According to the allegation contained in the FIR the first informant Sultan Ahmed has five brothers. The elder brother, namely, Muhammad Azeem had a fight with Muhammad Rafiq, Muhammad Zareef and Muhammad Habib but the matter was patched up by the respectables of the locality. The abovesaid persons had threatened that they would take revenge for the insult. On 12‑2‑1988, at about 11/12 a.m., said Muhammad Azeem again had an altercation with one Muhammad Habib and he slapped him as well. The first informant was sitting in the Baithak of one Muhammad Siddiq when Muhammad Siddique co‑accused of the petitioner came and asked him to come out. At that time the first informant was not aware about the altercation which had taken place on the same day. In the meanwhile another co‑accused of the petitioner Muhammad Zareef also came there and took him with them on the pretext of talking to him about something. Both the above‑said accused started abusing the first informant and raised Lalkara to take revenge for the earlier incident. The commotion attracted some witnesses at the spot as well who rescued the first informant from the clutches of the co‑accused of the petitioner. When the first informant was going towards the bus stand, he saw his brother Sher Muhammad coming from the opposite direction. The petitioner is alleged to have raised a Lalkara to his co‑accused that they should not be left alive. The petitioner alongwith his co‑accused came and attacked them. The co‑accused of the petitioner, namely. Muhammad Zareef gave a dagger blow on the left shoulder of Sher Muhammad, another co‑accused Muhammad Habib fired with .12 bore carbine hitting on the chest of Sher Muhammad whereupon he fell down. The petitioner is alleged to have held the first informant in Japhha.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is absolutely false. Submits that no overt act whatsoever is attributed to the petitioner towards the deceased. Contends that the petitioner is only alleged to have held the first informant in his clasp without even attempting to cause any injury to him. The petition has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for State.
2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. The motive if any was equally available against Sher Muhammad as well as the first informant yet the petitioner did not cause any harm to. Sultan Ahmed complainant. The co accused of the petitioner were armed with deadly weapons but the petitioner is stated to be empty handed. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable from that of his co‑accused, therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Sargodha.
S.A./M‑908/L Bail allowed.