MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus THE STATE
ORDER
1. Muhammad Afzal petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and his brother with Police Station Wanike Tarar, District Gujranwala, for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. dated 24‑4‑1989. The allegations, as contained in the F.I.R. lodged by Liaqat Ali, are to the effect that his uncle Bashir Ahmad had purchased some land at village Lalke, and shifted his residence there. On 23‑4‑1989, in the evening the first informant with his brother Shaukat Ali came to the Dera of their uncle. At night, the petitioner with his brother Zafar Iqbal also came there. First informant's uncle Bashir Ahmad had married Mst. Nazir Begum about 6‑7 months earlier who was mother of the petitioner. The petitioner and his brother were annoyed, but subsequently they reconciled and started visiting their mother. At night, the first informant with his brother Shaukat Ali, and Ihsanullah and Hidayatullah, sons of Bashir Ahmad slept on the roof of the house with both the accused. In the courtyard of the house Mst. Nazir Begum was sleeping, whereas Bashir Ahmad was sleeping at the Behk. At about midnight, they heard fire‑arm shots, and saw Zafar Iqbal, armed with carbine, and Muhammad Afzal petitioner, armed with revolver. Within their view, Zafar Iqbal fired three/four shots with his carbine at Mst. Nazir Begum and thereafter ran out of the house and went to the Behk where first informant's uncle Bashir Ahmad was sleeping. The witnesses also followed them. Within their view the petitioner fired 6‑7 shots with his revolver hitting on different parts of Bashir Ahmad's body. Resultantly, Bashir Ahmad died at the spot.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the eye‑witnesses, except for Hidayatullah and Ihsanullah, both real sons of Bashir Ahmad, deceased, was resident of the house, and, in such circumstances, they were chance witnesses. Argued that according to the prosecution allegations, ten‑twelve shots were fired yet neat even a single empty was secured from the spot. Asserted that both the sons of the deceased, who were inmates of the house, have sworn affidavits exonerating the petitioners, thereby it has become a case of further inquiry. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the F.I.R. The petitioner and his co‑accused were real sons of Mst. Nazir Begum. The A petitioner is alleged to have fired 6‑7 shots, yet not even a single crime empty was secured from the spot. Liaqat Ali and Shaukat Ali, P.Ws., are not even residents of the village instead they live in a village which is at a distance of about ten miles from the spot. There is no explanation why they came to the village of the deceased and chose to spend the night with him. Both the sons of the deceased have sworn affidavits exonerating the petitioner, and, in such circumstances, it becomes a case of further inquiry, because, admittedly they were residents of the same house where Mst. Nazir Begum was done to death
3. For what has been discussed above, I hold it is a case of further inquiry. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.30,000, with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned.
4. H.B.T./M‑36/L ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????? Bail granted.