AHMAD ALI Versus STATE
ORDER
This is a bail application by Ahmed Ali petitioner, who stands charged for an offence of murder of his wife Mst. Sharifan Bibi and reported against vide F.I.R. No. 52, dated 9‑3‑1984, Police Station Chuchak, District Okara.
2. According to the F.I.R. version which was recorded on the statement of Allah Ditta, brother of deceased on 8‑3‑1984, Sultan son of Ghulam Muhammad, complainants younger brother came to him and informed him that Mst. Sharifan Bibi, deceased, has sent a message that she was not being properly treated by her husband, Ahmed Ali, namely, the present petitioner and was accusing her of immoral character. She had accordingly sent for the two brothers to come to her aid. On receiving this message, Allah Ditta Sultan Nazir son of Rahim in the evening left for village Feroze and reached at the Pattan at about 8‑00 p.m. from where they could not find any transport and walked away to the said village Feroze. At about mid‑night, when three of them reached the house of their sister, they heard her cries and then they found her running out of the house into the street and being followed by Ahmad Ali, petitioner, who was armed with .12 bore gun. He was abusing her. He fired at her which hit her in the back and the second fire hit her in the front of chest. She fell down. The three persons raised Lalkara and ran to their sister. The petitioner, on seeing them while firing in the air, ran away. She died on the spot. The reason for the crime is stated to be that Ahmad Ali suspected Mst. Sharifan Bibi to be having illicit relations with one Allah Yar.
3. Before the challan was put up, the statement of Sultan son of Ghulam, an alleged eye‑witness of the occurrence and Nazir son of Rahim, nephew of the deceased, got their statements recorded before a Magistrate Ist Class in which they stated that they were informed through, a messenger about the murder of Mst. Sharifan Bibi in their village and nobody in the village a report and that the police had not justifiably put them as eye‑witnesses. It is thus crystal clear that two of the close relatives of the deceased who are eye‑witnesses to the occurrence, as mentioned in the F.I.R. are not supporting the prosecution case and the veracity of the F.I.R. stands shaken to a considerable degree. This, at once gives rise to doubts and a benefit of doubt must be extended at the bail stage to an accused person. There are thus no reasonable grounds for belief, at the present juncture, that the petitioner is guilty of offence with which he stands charged.
4. In the circumstances, I would admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.1,500 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Okara, pending trial.
S.A. Bail allowed.