MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE

Petitioners seek bail in case F. I. R. No. 157, dated 1st June, 1982, Police Station Tandlianwala, District Faisalabad under section 302/148; 149, P, P. C. lodged by Umar Hayat, son of Muhammad Khan deceased at 9.30 p. m.

2. The occurrence had taken place the same day at 6 p. m. in the bazar of Chak No. 417/G. B. Police Station, Tandlianwala.

3. Briefly, the prosecution case is that the complainant had divorced Mst. Daulan as he suspected that she was carrying on with Alia co-accused of the petitioners. Nur, one of the P. Ws., the cousin of the informant got married his brother with Mst. Daulan, the divorced wife of the com plainant. It is stated that Alia co-accused had told Nut to pass through the bazar. He had also threatened and abused him. It is further stated that on the day of occurrence at about 6.00 p. m. when P. Ws. Nur, Manzoor and Qutba were going to the house of Malla, the petitioners accompanied by co-accused Alia and Qasim armed with lathis attacked Nur, Manzoor and Qutba P. Ws. They ran towards their houses followed by Ali, Qasim and the petitioners. The complainant and his deceased father Muhammad Khan hearing the noise came out of their house. When the deceased went ahead to save the P. Ws., namely Nur, Manzoor and Qutba. Alia and Qasim co-accused gave lathi blows on the head of the deceased who fell down and died on the spot.

4. P. W. Nut suffered two simple injuries, Manzoor P. W. suffered three injuries, two simple and one grievous on the pharynx of fore-finger and Qutba P. W. suffered one simple injury.

5. It is contended that there is no allegation that the petitioners had either caused any injury to the deceased or attempted to cause any injury.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has laid stress on the fact that the petitioners cannot be held liable for any common intention so far as the murder of Muhammad Khan deceased is concerned, and that the injuries suffered by the P. Ws. are simple and the one injury declared to be grievous is on non-vital part and is of insignificant nature. He has placed reliance upon Khadim Hussain v. The State and another (1981 S C M R 1115).

6. Learned counsel for the State controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is contended that since the petitioners were accompanying the co-accused they are guilty of having common intention.

7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and gone through the record and the citation quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The injuries alleged to have been caused to the P. W. by they petitioners and their co-accused were found to be simple except only one grievous injury which was on the pharynx of fore-finger. Whether the petitioner's are liable jointly and had common intention to murder the deceased, will have to be seen in this case during, the trial in view of the statement in the first information report that the petitioners and their co -accused were chasing the P. Ws. and that the deceased had come forward only to intervene, whereof he was caused injuries by the co-accused of the petitioners. In this view of the matter, I feel that a case of further enquiry is made out. The petitioners shall be released on bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Samundri.

S. G. D. Bail allowed.