ZULFIQAR Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and four others under section 3021307/1481149, P.P.C. at Police Station Sahiwal, District Sargodha on 27‑9‑1986 at 7‑30 a.m. for an occurrence said to have taken place on 26‑9‑1986 at Deegarwela.

As a result of the injuries suffered during the occurrence, Ata Muhammad died while Karam Khan suffered one injury on the head. The injury to Karam Khan is stated to have been inflicted by the petitioner.

2. Motive for the occurrence was that a few days before the occurrence, Sarfraz alias Muhammad Sarwar co‑accused of the petitioner, had given beating to a minor son of Karam Khan.

3. Initially the investigation was conducted by Muhammad Yaqub, A.S.I. under the supervision of Zulfiqar Ali, D.S.P./S.D.P.O. They upheld the version of the complainant given in the F.I.R,. Later. on an application by the accused party, the investigation was entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Shafi Saleem, DSP (Headquarters). The D.S.P. after investigation came to the conclusion that the occurrence had taken place in two parts. In that, Karam Khan, according to him, d suffered injuries at the place mentioned in the F.I.R,. at the hands of Sarfraz alias Muhammad Sarwar, and thereafter, Karam Khan alon with Ata Muhammad (deceased) accompanied by others had attacked Sarfraz alias Sarwam in his house where Ata Muhammad suffered injuries, as a result of which he died, while Nawaz co‑accused of the petitioner, Mst. Sakina and Allah Bakhsh, relatives of the petitioner also suffered injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as a result of the last investigation, the version putforth by the complainant has been disbelieved; that the complainant failed to give any explanation of the injuries suffered by co‑accused of the petitioner as well as the injuries suffered by two relations of the petitioner and that the petitioner is alleged only to have caused a simple injury to a P.W."

5. Learned counsel for the State while opposing the grant of bail, contended that he was not convinced about the correctness of the finding of the D.S.P. Mr. Muhammad Shafi Saleem and so he supported the version putforth in the F.I.R.

Learned counsel contended that since the petitioner had joined hands with his co‑accused in launching assault, he was as good responsible for the death of Ata Muhammad, as the others, who are alleged to have caused injuries to him.

6. It is apparent from the above, that two versions of the occurrence have been put forth and the two sets of Police Officers have accepted one version each to be correct. Barring this fact, the other aspect worth consideration is that even if the story put forth by the complainant is accepted to be nearer the truth, the fact remains that the petitioner was only alleged to have caused a simple injury to a P.W. and he is in jail for the last more than six months.

Keeping in view all the above facts, I feel inclined to allow bail to the petitioner. He shall be released 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, Sargodha.

S.G.D./Z‑56/L Bail allowed.