MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Muhammad Aslam petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and others, with Police Station Alipur Chathha, District Gujranwala, for offences under section 302/307/324/148/149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. dated 27‑10‑1990. The case was got registered by Sabir Hussain with the allegation that the first informant and other members of his family were supporting one Azam Cheema in the elections. One Babu Fazal Karim was supporter of Pakistan People's Party. On 22‑10‑1990 the first informant and his family members organized a public meeting for their candidate. On this issue first informant's brother Jaffar Hussain and Babu Fazal Karim exchanged hot words. On 27‑10‑1990 at about 11‑30 a.m. the first informant with his brothers Jaffar Hussain, Dilawar Hussain with Shaukat Ali, Manzoor Ahmad and Ghulam Miran were standing near the polling booth when the petitioner armed with knife, alongwith his co‑accused also armed, came there. Babu Fazal Karim held Jaffar Hussain in his clasp, whereas co‑accused Muhammad Shafique, gave a dagger blow on the back of Jaffar Hussain who fell down. The petitioner gave a knife blow on the thigh of Jaffar Hussain. Another co‑accused belaboured Shaukat Ali, P.W., who also fell down, whereupon Haji Sandal Khan, co‑accused, gave two Sota blows on the right knee of said Shaukat Ali. Thereafter, the accused also belaboured other witnesses. After the occurrence, the accused persons left the spot while raising Lalkaras. Jaffar Hussain died while being transported to the hospital.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that *the role ascribed to the petitioner is that he while armed with a knife gave injuries on the left thigh. Submits that the post‑mortem report is in conflict with the ocular account because the injury found on the left thigh of the deceased Jaffar Hussain was only skin deep. Contends that the injury has been declared simple, therefore, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from his co‑accused who had given fatal blow. Argued that the occurrence had taken place on the election day and at the spur of the moment, therefore, the application of section 34, P.P.C. was the matter of further inquiry. The petition has been resisted by learned counsel for the State.

3. I have heard the counsel and gone through the F.I.R. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He was armed with a knife. He gave an injury to the deceased when the deceased had fallen on the ground on receipt of knife blow by the co‑accused of the petitioner. The co‑accused who have since been released on bail were not ascribed any overt act qua the deceased. After going through the F.I.R. I am of the opinion that prima facie there is no conflict between the post‑mortem reports and the ocular account. After the deceased had fallen down, it does not mean that he remained still, he must have been moving his body, and thereby if the petitioner did not succeed in causing grievous hurt it would not mean that his involvement: is doubtful. I find no force in the petition, which is, accordingly dismissed.

N.H.Q./M‑331/L

Bail refused.