MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus State

ORDER

CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J .---Petitioner Muhammad Bashir by way of the instant petition has prayed for bail after-arrest in case F.I.R. No.264 originally registered under sections 337-A(i)/337-F(i)/337-F(v)337-L(2)/148/149, P.P.C. with Police Station Shah Bhaur, District Okara on 29-9-2009. On the death of injured Mian Khan, the offence under section 302, P.P.C. statedly was added in the same on 5-10-2009.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. is that on 21-9-2009 at about 10-11 a.m. Mian Khan and others while having Sotas, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them, at Killa No. 4 Square No. 16 in the village of the complainant, they all caught him (complainant) from his hair and dragged him towards their Dhari. On his alarm, his sister Mst. Zikran Bibi and father Mian Khan were attracted to the spot. They tried to rescue him. Thereupon, they (accused) all with Sotas gave beatings to them, who received injuries on the various parts of their bodies. In the meanwhile, many villagers were attracted to the spot, who rescued them. They (accused) ran away from the spot with their weapons. It was on account of a quarrel having taken place between him (complainant) and the accused on 20-9-2009 at about 3-00 p.m. The accused having grudge against him have committed the said act.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that it is amply clear from the very F.I.R. itself that no specific injury either to the complainant or his aforesaid sister and father has been ascribed to any of them (accused). It may be relevant to mention here with concern that there were in all twelve accused in this case. Eight of them including his own self (petitioner) were nominated in the same (F.I.R.) and four of them were unknown persons. It, is everybody's case before me that six out of the nominated accused have been declared innocent by the police and only he (petitioner) and his brother Hazir Bakhsh have been left in the case. The question of his vicarious liability is to be gone into at trial. Therefore, from all such angles, his case is open to further inquiry into his guilt. The same, thus, is covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.

4. It may be mentioned here with all fairness that in sub-para (a) of paragraph No. 4 of his petition, he (petitioner has relied upon the case of Amin v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 277). With all respect to the esteemed authority, I am of the view that the same is not applicable herein his case.

5. However, on other grounds, as indicated above, his case has been considered on the basis of the nature of the accusation against him and other attending circumstances.

6. He statedly has been arrested on 13-11-2009, i.e. about five months ago. The well-settled proposition in law, as regards the question of bail is that when case of an accused may be found one of further inquiry into his guilt, he then becomes entitled to such relief as of right and not mere grace. In such a situation, he cannot be detained unnecessarily for a moment even.

7. I, thus, have been persuaded to hold that he has made out a case for release on bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

8. I may observe here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the instant matter. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial.

H.B.T./M-232/L Bail granted.