HAMID BASHIR Versus MUJAHID KHAN

ORDER

Hamid Bashir petitioner has moved this petition for cancellation of bail allowed to Mujahid Khan respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide order dated 10‑5‑1987 in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C.

The F.I.R. version is that Abid Bashir deceased, was a 4th year student in the Civil Lines Islamia College, Lahore. Farrakh, Qamar, Asif and Mujahid Khan respondent were on visiting terms with him. On 17‑4‑1987 at 5‑30 p.m. Farrakh P.W. came to the house of the deceased in a car and asked him to accompany him to Rahat Bakery. Hamid Bashir and Muhammad Latif who wanted to purchase some medicines also accompanied them. Farrakh and Abid made some purchases and started back with Hamid Bashir and aforesaid Muhammad Latif. At about 6‑00 p.m. when they were going on Sarwar Road co‑accused Qamar and Asif came in a Toyota Car driven by Mujahid respondent and gave signal to Farrakh and Abid Bashir to stop. At the same time Qamar who was sitting with Mujahid respondent on the front seat fired at the car of Farrakh. Farrakh stopped the car and in the meantime Qamar and Asif came out of their car 'and Qamar accused pulled out the deceased from the car. Farrakh, Hamid Bashir and Latif also got down to rescue the deceased but before they could do so, Asif accused fired at Abid Bashir hitting the back of his neck as a result of which he fell down. Qamar and Asif then got into their car and Mujahid respondent sped it away.

The motive alleged in the F.I.R. was that a few days before the occurrence an altercation took place between the deceased and the accused persons and all the three had threatened the deceased with dire consequences.

2. Initially the case was registered under section 307, P.P.C. The respondent moved an application for pre‑arrest bail in the Sessions Court. He was allowed interim bail on 18‑4‑1987 and the application was fixed for final hearing on 30‑4‑1987. On 21‑4‑1987 Abid Bashir succumbed to his injury and section 302, P.P.C. was added. The respondent moved a fresh application for pre‑arrest bail on 22‑4‑1987. He was allowed interim bail and that application was also fixed for 30‑4‑1987. On the said date the bail application was rejected. The Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that the role played by the respondent herein indicated that he was sharing common intention with his co‑accused. Thereafter the respondent moved an application for post arrest bail, which came up for hearing before the same Additional Sessions Judge on 10‑5‑1987 and he admitted him to bail with the observation that the role attributed to him was covered by vicarious liability and the same has yet to be proved ...."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations prima facie, indicate that the murder, was committed in pursuance of a pre‑arranged design and it was so observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 3‑4‑1987. It is submitted that in the absence of any fresh material there was absolutely no justification to release the petitioner on bail just ten days after the rejection of his first bail application.

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that during investigation Dr. Muhammad Hafeez, Medical Officer, C.M.H. Lahore, had made a statement before the Investigation Officer that on inquiry the deceased had told him that co‑accused Asif and Qamar had injured him. It is submitted that this fact was brought to the notice of the learned Additional Sessions Judge during the hearing of the application for post arrest bail, and this fresh material was considered by him while passing the bail order.

4. I have perused the record and carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. There is nothing in the statement of the doctor to show that the deceased had exonerated the respondent. All that the said statement shows is that the deceased named Asif and Qamar as the persons who caused him injuries. The respondent is alleged to have brought them in close contact with the deceased by providing them lift in a car and thus facilitated the commission of murder. After the deceased had been fired at, the respondent again provided them lift and took them away from the spot. The occurrence took place on 17‑4‑1987 and the respondent was allowed interim bail on 18‑4‑1987 which was withdrawn on 30‑4‑1987. Only ten days after that he was again admitted to bail for which there seems no justification.

Consequently this petition is accepted and the bail allowed to the respondent by the Additional Sessions Judge is cancelled.

S.A./H‑48/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail cancelled.