ILYAS Versus THE STATE
ORDER
This is a petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. by Ilyas, petitioner, for bail in respect of a case instituted against him and four others under sections 302/307/452/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station City, Sheikhupura, on 23‑9‑1986.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that one Muhammad Ashraf lived in Mohallah Roshan Pura, Sheikhupura, as a tenant of Mohammad Rafiq barbar. On 22‑9‑1986 in the evening the said Mohammad Ashraf cut an indecent joke in connection with the daughter of one Mohammad Sharif, carpenter, upon which Akbar Ali, deceased, who alongwith his brother Sher Mohammad complainant resided in the same Mohallah, admonished the said Mohammad Ashraf and told him to leave the said Mohallah immediately. On 23‑9‑1986 at about dopehar waila, the said Mohammad Ashraf, alongwith Ilyas, petitioner, and Muhammad Arshad, A!:htar, Zulqarnain and Ilyas, co‑accused, who were residents of the same Mohatrah, came to Akbar Ali, deceased, and requested him that Mohammad Ashraf be allowed four to five days' time to leave the Mohallah, but the deceased did not agree to their request and insisted that the said Mohammad Ashraf should leave without further delay. During the conversation bickering took Place between Akbar Ali, deceased, and Mohammad Asghar alias Goga, co- accused, and the others, during which the deceased abused them and they left hurling threats. At about 9‑00 p.m., Akbar Ali, deceased, alongwith his brother Sher Mohammad, complainant, and Karamat Ali and Mohammad Ashraf Hajjab P.W.s, who were their neighbours, and Riasat Ali Malik P.W. were sitting in the lane in front of the house of Sher Mohammad, complainant. The bulb in the lane was burning. Mohammad Arshad alias Goga, co‑accused, armed with a rifle, Ilyas Petitioner, and Akhtar, and Gharib Alam, co‑accused, all armed with guns, and Zulqarnain, co‑accused, armed with a revolver, turned up. Zulqarnain, co‑accused, uttered a Lalkara that the complainant party should be taught a lesson for insulting them. Ilyas, petitioner, then fired a shot from his gun, which hit Akbar Ali, deceased, on his left arm and Mohammad Ashraf Hajjam P.W. on his back. The latter ran towards his house in an injured condition, whereas Akbar Ali, deceased, alongwith his brother Slier Mohammad, complainant, and Karamat Ali P.W., entered the house. Gharib Alam, co‑accused, followed them into their house and when Akbar Ali, deceased, had reached near his bath‑room, Gharib Alam, co‑accused, fired his gun, which shot hit Akbar All, deceased on his chest and left shoulder, as a result of which he became unconscious and fell down and died at the spot shortly thereafter. The petitioner and the other co‑accused then made good their escape, while firing in the air.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the n State and have perused the police file. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit of Muhammad Ashraf injured P.W. submitted in the Sessions Court which showed that only Muhammad Arshad alias Goga, co- accused, was responsible for the total incident and the statement of this witness made to the police on 26‑9‑1986 which showed that he did not recognize anybody else other than Muhammad Arshad alias Goga co‑accused, places the case of the petitioner as calling for further inquiry, cannot be accepted. In the first instance, Muhammad Ashraf injured P.W. in his police statement only stated that he recognized Muhammad Arshad alias Goga co‑accused, but not his other companions, who were three or four in number. As regards the affidavit submitted by the said witness in the Sessions Court the learned Additional Sessions fudge in para. 4 of the impugned order has already held that this witness denied the said affidavit in open Court and filed another affidavit in this Court supporting the main case.
In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that Muhammad Ashraf injured P.W. exonerates the presence of Ilyas, petitioner. Karamat Ali and Riasat Ali P.Ws. are the two other eye‑witnesses who implicate Ilyas, petitioner. The petitioner is also attributed to have fired at Akbar Ali, deceased.
In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed.
H.B.T./1‑57/L Bail declined.