MUKHTAR AHMAD Versus THE STATE
ORDER
A case under section 307/34, P.P.C, was registered at Police Station Qilla Didar Singh, District Gujranwala on 22‑4‑1986 for an occurrence alleged to have taken place on the same day at 5‑00 p.m.
2. According to F.I.R. the complainant alongwith others was sitting in front of his house. Muhammad Sadiq (deceased) was coming towards him. When lie took a turn from the Pacca road to the house of the complainant, Mukhtar Ahmad and Muhammad Arif appeared on a tractor trolley, driven by Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner. Muhammad Arif, who was with him, was armed with a gun. When they reached near Sadiq deceased, Mukhtar Ahmad petitioner raised a Lalkara that Sadiq be taught a lesson for murdering Akram. When Sadiq looked back, Arif fired a shot hitting him in the chest, as a result of which he fell down. The complainant accompanied by other two witnesses, ran after the tractor trolley but the, accused drove away the tractor trolley while raising Lalkara and firing shots. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that the occurrence had taken place at the instance and abetment of Bashir Ahmad and Abdul Sattar.
3. Motive for the occurrence was previous enmity on account of some murder.
4. Muhammad Sadiq was removed to Gujranwala Civil Hospital where he was medically examined. Thereafter, he was shifted to Mayo Hospital, Lahore where he died on 4‑5‑1985. Offence under sections 302 and 109, P.P.C, was added thereafter.
5. Statement of Muhammad Sadiq (deceased) was recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. by Safdar Hussain, A.S.I. on 30‑4‑1986. In the statement made by the deceased he corroborated the version given in the F.I.R.
6. Mukhtar Ahmad has moved for grant of bail on the ground that no overt act in the sense of causing any injury to the deceased or anybody else has been ascribed to him; that no allegation has been levelled against him either in the F.I.R. or in the statement made by Muhammad Sadiq deceased that he, was armed with anything at the time of occurrence; that he is not related to Akram, to avenge whose murder, Sadiq is alleged to have been murdered; that he is not related to any of the three other accused named in the F.I.R.; that the two co‑accused at whose instance the occurrence is stated to have taken place, have already been released on bail and that he is in jail for the last about one year and there is no progress in the trial.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the tractor trolley, said to have been used in the commission of crime, does not belong to the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant/State on the other hand contended that the very presence of the petitioner shows that he had joined hands with Muhammad Arif co‑accused who had caused the fatal injury and so he fully shared the common intention.
With regard to the relationship of Mukhtar petitioner with Akram (deceased of the earlier murder case) learned counsel for the complainant stated that he has instructions to say that he is related but he is not in a position to say with positive assertion as to in what degree he is related.
8. Be that as it may, the position remains undisputed that the petitioner had not caused any injury; that he was not armed at the time of occurrence and that he is in jail for the last about one year. Although Lalkara is alleged to him but it has been the trend of the superior Courts to grant bail to the persons accused of having raised Lalkara, considering of course the period of detention and other allegations made, as well.
Having regard to the facts of the case and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. I feel inclined to grant this petition. The petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. twenty‑five thousand with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala.
M.Y.H./M‑785/L Bail granted.