ABDUL GHANI Versus STATE

ORDER

This order shall dispose of two bail petitions namely Criminal Miscellaneous No.4248/B of 1993 filed by Abdul Ghani and Criminal Miscellaneous No.4084/B of 1993 filed by Umar Hayat, who stand arrested in case F.I.R. No.252/92, dated 8-12-1992, under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Wan Bachran, District Mianwali, at the instance of Ghulam Rasool, for committing the murder of Muhammad Akhtar (deceased) and attempted murder of Abdur Rehman, injured P.W. on -8-12-1992.

2. According to the F.I.R., the first informant Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Akhtar (deceased), Abdur Rehman injured P.W., Khizar Hayat and Shahnawaz were returning after hunting quails from the lands of the accused who may laid them and opened fire on them as a result whereof Sultan's fire hit Akhtar (deceased) and Umar Hayat's fire hit Abdur Rehman in his leg. Abdul Ghani, petitioner's fire did not hit anybody. Motive for the attack was stated to be that the accused party used to prohibit the complainant party from hunting quails from their lands and even earlier on number of occasions the parties had quarrelled with each other.

3. During the investigation the police found that as a matter of fact Riaz etc. had gone for hunting quails to the lands of the present petitioners where they picked up a row with Abdul Ghani, petitioner and a little later, they went armed to the place of occurrence and belaboured Abdul Ghani who hid himself in the sugarcane field out of fear. Thereafter the two parties clashed and exchanged fire. According to the police investigation, Abdul Ghani was neither armed nor did he made firing at the time of occurrence and that Akhtar (deceased) and Abdur Rehman, injured P.W., hearing the reports of gun fires came out of the Abadi and were caught in firing and received the bullet injuries. Ultimately the police has placed Abdul Ghani in Column No.2 of the challan but holding Sultan and Umar Hayat guilty challaned them with the direction that since the other party was guilty of firing at the house of Sultan, therefore, they be also challaned. Consequently an F.I.R. No.2/93 has been registered at the instance of Amir Abdullah, party-man of the accused and four persons namely Maqsood, Ghazi, Mulazim and Waris have been challaned. The petitioners' bail plea was declined by the lower Court, hence these petitions.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Abdul Ghani, petitioner, is entitled to grant of bail since he has been found to be innocent and his name has been placed in Column No.2 of the challan; that Umar Hayat, petitioner, is not guilty of causing any injury to the deceased and that he has been falsely attributed the role of causing injuries to Abdur Rehman; and that he (Umar Hayat, petitioner) is entitled to grant of bail also on the ground that there is cross-version wherein the other side has also been challaned, therefore, the question whether Umar Hayat caused any injury to Abdur Rehman or not or whether he was vicariously guilty of the offence of murder needs further inquiry? Learned counsel for State opposed the bail petition of Umar Hayat but admitted that Abdul Ghani, petitioner, has been found to be innocent and his name has been entered in Column No.2 of the challan.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that Abdur Ghani, petitioner, is entitled to grant of bail since the police has found him as innocent. As for Abdur Rehman, petitioner, is concerned, the police has expressed doubt about his being participant in the offence of murder, therefore, he too is entitled to grant of bail. Consequently both the petitions are allowed and it is directed that Abdul Ghani and Umar Hayat, petitioners, be released subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

N.H.Q./A-585/L

Bail allowed