MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This is an application for grant of bail to Muhammad Mansha petitioner in case under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. registered at P.S. Saddar Daska, District Sialkot, vide F.I.R. No. 409, dated 16‑6‑1986.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 11 others, in furtherance of their common object launched murderous assault on Muhammad Sadiq on 16‑6‑1986 and caused his death. As for the petitioner, it has been alleged that he was armed with gun and had also fired at the deceased.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no injury has specifically been attributed to the petitioner that the petitioner is a student; that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the case in that, he was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence and was in fact under the treatment of Dr. Aman Ullah in Aman Hospital Telleywala District Bahawalpur; that on 8‑8‑1986 the petitioner produced certificate, issued by Dr. Aman Ullah before the Investigating Officer to that effect that the petitioner remained under his treatment from 13‑6‑1986 to 20‑6‑1986 in District Bahawalpur; that the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Dr. Aman Ullah on 6‑10‑1986 who supported the alibi of the petitioner and owned the aforesaid certificate; that the Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of Mureed Hussain and 7 others in support of plea of alibi of the petitioner; that in police Zimni, dated 27‑3‑1987. Raja Muhammad Mahboob D.S.P. opined that the petitioner was in Bahawalpur district tae time of occurrence and that since the complainant and the eye‑witnesses had insisted that the petitioner was very much present at the time of occurrence on the spot, therefore, the question of of the petitioner was left to the decision of the Court. The learned counsel maintained that in the circumstance of the case, benefit of doubt must go to the petitioner. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F.I.R.; that specific part, of effective firing at the deceased has been assigned to him; that the petitioner could not be arrested immediately after the occurrence; that he produced medical certificate, dated 20‑6‑1986 issued by Dr. Aman Ullah, a private practitioner, before the police after about 11 months of the occurrence that the petitioner was never admitted a any Government hospital; that except the certificate issued by Dr. Aman Ullah there is no documentary proof of the illness and presence of the petitioner in Bahawalpur District from 13‑6‑1986 to 20‑6‑1986; that the name of the petitioner has not been placed in Column No. 2 of the challan and the opinion of the D.S.P. on the plea of alibi of the petitioner is not binding on the Court and each case has its own facts. The complainant and the eye‑witnesses of the occurrence have categorically stated in the F.I.R. and statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was not only present on the spot but had also fired at the deceased. In the circumstances of this case, I feel that the medical certificate issued by the doctor, opinion of the Investigating Officer and the oral evidence of the alibi of the petitioner recorded by the Investigating Officer do not constitute reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner had not committed the alleged offences.

For what has been said above, there being no merits, the petition is dismissed.

S.A./M‑529/L Bail refused.