MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus STATE

ORDER

1. The petitioner and two of his co-accused are accused of an offence under section 302, P. P. C. According to the F. I. R. it was the alleged illicit intimacy between the petitioner's wife and the deceased which led to the occurrence, but the actual role attributed to the petitioner is of lalkara and japha and of causing an injury with a soti to Ghulam Muhammad P. W. The medical evidence, however, does not go alongwith the allegations in the F. I. R. The injury on the arm of Ghulam Muhammad is by a sharp-edged weapon while the petitioner was allegedly carrying a soti. The japha and the lalkara alleged against the petitioner do not appear to be anything more than the proverbial japha and lalkara. The case of the petitioner that he did not participate in the offence, therefore, gains strength from these circumstances. The mere fact that it was his wife regarding whom there was a grievance against the deceased is not enough to show his participation in the occurrence for which two of his brother have also been named as accused; one of whom was actually injured though this fact was not revealed in the F. I. R. To my mind the circumstances of the case are such that the guilt of the petitioner depend on further inquiry. The petitioner may, therefore, be released on bail if he furnishes bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. Khanewal.

2. M. Y. H. Bail granted.