MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Muhammad Hussain and Bashir Ahmad petitioners have moved this petition for bail in a case registered against them and their co‑accused Altaf Hussain Shah under section 302/34, P.P.C.

2. The prosecution version is that Abdal deceased developed illicit relations with Mst. Safia, daughter of Muhammad Hussain petitioner. About one year prior to the occurrence he enticed her away and started living with her in his village where she gave birth to a child, About four months prior to the occurrence Muhammad Hussain brought his daughter alongwith the newly born child to his own house. Abdal deceased paid several visits to the house of Muhammad Hussain petitioner but he refused to send his daughter Mst. Safia and her son with him. He told the deceased that he would send Mst. Safia with him only if he agreed to give the hand of his sister to his brother Bashir Ahmad petitioner. On 23‑9‑1986 the deceased took a Punchayat to the house of Muhammad Hussain petitioner. Negotiations continued till late in the night but the controversy could not be resolved. The deceased and the members of the Punchayat namely Ghulam Rasool Shah, Qutab Shah, Saifal Shah and Muhammad Shah stayed for the night with Muhammad Hussain petitioner. On the following morning Abdal deceased told the petitioners that it would be better if his wife was sent with him as he could not live without her. On hearing this the petitioners and their co‑accused Altaf Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain petitioner got infuriated. Bashir Ahmad petitioner brought out a .12 bore gun from his house. Then both the petitioners exhorted Altaf Hussain co‑accused to kill the deceased upon which Altaf Hussain attacked him. The deceased in order to save himself, sat down and held Altaf Hussain accused by his legs. Altaf Hussain took out a Chhuri from the fold of his Shalwar and gave two blows on his back. The deceased started running. Altaf Hussian followed him and gave him two more blows as a result of which he died instantaneously.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no injury has been attributed to the petitioners and both of them have been found innocent during the investigation. The learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioners were found innocent during the investigation.

4. I have gone through the relevant material and given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In the report under section 173, Cr.P.C., dated 25‑10‑1986 both the petitioners have been shown in column No.2 of the challan. In the said report it has been stated that they were found innocent. However, in the report, dated 15‑1 ‑1987 they have been placed in column No.3 alongwith their co‑accused. They are not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. According to the F.I.R. co‑accused Altaf Hussain took out the Chhuri from the fold of his Shalwar. The question whether the petitioners knew that he was having a Chhuri in the fold of his Shalwar would require a serious consideration at the trial in the circumstances, the case of the petitioners needs further inquiry. I, therefore, admit them to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner, Jhang.

M.Y.H./M‑782/L Bail granted.