GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus THE STATE

This is a petition made by Ghulam Mustafa son of Karam Elahi, seeking bail after arrest in a case registered against him and co‑accused Javaid through F.I.R. No. 186/87 at Police Station Bohar Gate, Multan on 30‑8‑1987, under section 307/34, P.P.C. The F.I.R. has been recorded at the instance of one Muhammad Azim. According to allegations in the F.I.R. the complainant alongwith his brother Ghulam Farid were coming to vegetable market from Ghulam Farid's house who were, accompanied by Muhammad Alam. When they reached at the road, the present petitioner armed with the revolver and his co-accused Javaid armed with dagger were seen. Javaid co‑accused allegedly waiving his dagger raised a Lalkara shouting that Ghulam Farid and Azim were coming and they should be taught a lesson for murdering their father. The complainant and his brother tried to turn when the petitioner allegedly fired with his revolver which hit Ghulam Farid at his back on the spinal cord. Ghulam Farid fell down and the noise raised, attracted Muhammad Sharif what happened to be there. Many other persons gathered who tried to apprehend the petitioner and his co -accused but they succeeded in running away.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that co‑accused Javaid, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court which fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan to whom the bail application of the petitioner was entrusted passed an order on R‑3‑1998 that the case of the petitioner required further inquiry and he had formed a positive opinion that Ghulam Mustafa petitioner was not even present at the spot at the time of occurrence, but he declined to decide the bail application and sent flit case to the learned Sessions Judge. Multan for entrustment of the same to some other Court, in consequence of which the case was transferred to the other Court and the transferee Court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner. According to learned counsel, the opinion recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 28‑3‑1988 makes out a case for the petitioner for enlargement of bail because the opinion of a Judicial Officer makes this case, a case of further enquiry. He also argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 8 months. The trial had commenced but the prosecution has failed to produce evidence on two previous dates. On 28‑5‑1988 when the case was fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence the complainant side opened fire with fire arms outside the Court on which a case has been registered against them and they made impossible for the trial Court to record evidence. On the next date of hearing i.e. 18‑6‑1988, when the case was fixed for evidence though four witnesses of the prosecution were present, the evidence could not be recorded due to the fault of the prosecution having not supplied copies of statements of Rehmat Ali, Abdur Razzaq and Khan Muhammad witnesses which was statutory requirement without which no trial could commence. The learned trial Court had to pass an order to supply the statements of said witnesses recorded by the police to the petitioner and as such the adjournment was occasioned.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the application submitting that it was on account of application made by the petitioner demanding the supply of the copies of statements of above said witnesses, that the adjournment was made which was not the fault of the prosecution. '

4. After considering the case of the petitioner and the material collected by the investigating agency, but without commenting upon the merits of the case so that it may not prejudice the case on merits, I find that this is a case of further inquiry. At least a Judicial Officer of the status of Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 8‑3‑1988 so held. Apart from that the co‑accused Javaid has already been granted bail. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last 8 months. On 28‑5‑1988, an unfortunate incident of firing took place outside the Court Room of Trial Court when the case was fixed for recording the evidence of the A prosecution and an F.I.R. was lodged by the police charging the complainant side with the responsibility of the said firing. The truthfulness or otherwise, of these allegations will have to be decided by the competent Court or the investigating agency but the fact remains that the evidence has not been recorded in this case and the petitioner has been made to suffer. It is evident from order dated 21‑5 1988 that no prosecution witness was present for recording evidence.

5. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is hereby allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 15,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The Criminal Miscellaneous stands disposed of.

SA./G‑157/L

Bail allowed.