MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus KHUDA BAKHSH

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J. --This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Ramzan for cancellation of bail allowed to respon dents Nos. 1 to 4, namely, Khuda Bakhsh, Shah Nawaz, Rashid alias Sheeda and Yousaf, by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Multan Bench, Multan.

2. Briefly the facts are that a case is registered against the aforesaid respondents under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. in which Muhammad Yasin was murdered and Ashraf, Akram and Chhajju P.Ws. received injuries in an occurrence which took place on 15-12-1986 at 2-30 p.m. The present petitioner is the son of Muhammad Yasin, Akram and Ashraf injured P.Ws. are his brothers whereas injured Chhajju P.W. is father of the deceased. The position is that at the time of the occurrence the accused party was allegedly in possession of the disputed land which was previously in possession of the complainant party. There was a civil litigation pending between the complainant side against one Habib who had given under a secret arrangement possession of the said land to the accused party. The allegation is that the accused party had attacked the complainant side. The defence version is that the respondents were in possession of the disputed land and that the complainant party attacked them in order to dispossess them probably in view of the decree of the civil Court granted in their favour. The High Court allowed bail to the respondents for the reason that prima facie it appeared to be a sudden fight as some of the members of the accused party were themselves injured in the course of the incident. According to the prosecution version the respondents did not cause any injury to the deceased but they are only alleged to have caused simple injuries on non-vital parts to two of the eye-witnesses

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner before us attempted to argue that the complainant side had a civil Court decree in their favour and that the accused party were illegally in possession of the disputed land. Furthermore, it was submitted that even if the respondents had not caused any injury to the deceased they were vicariously liable for the murder of the deceased as section 149, P.P.C. was applicable to this case.

4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel. Bail lad been allowed to the respondents because learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the view that there were not reasonable grounds for believing that they had been vicariously liable for the murder of the deceased and that therefore there existed sufficiency ground for further inquiry into their guilt. In our opinion this view, of the matter can be legitimately taken and hence we do not find it fit case for interference in the exercise of discretion 4by the High Court.

5. The result is that this petition is dismissed.

6. M.I. /M-258/S Petition dismissed.