KHYBER TRADERS PROPRIETORSHIP Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD

ORDER

Petitioners seek bail in a case registered against them and others with Police Station Wahdat Colony, Lahore, vide F.I.R. dated 15-6-1993, for an offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. The case was got registered by Haji Inayat with the allegation that on 15-6-1993, at about 2-15 p.m., the first informant alongwith Manzoor Ahmad and Noor Jilani went to Javed Iqbal, son of the first informant, for taking money. He found his son sitting with 2/3 persons in the office of one Mian Idrees having food. First informant and his companions stood outside and started talking to each other. In the meanwhile, Manzoor Ahmad, son-in-law of the first informant came on a motor-cycle. He went to the office of Muhammad Idrees and started giving filthy abuses to Javed Iqbal and threatened that he would take revenge for the insult of his father. Simultaneously he fired six shots with his mauser at Javed Iqbal, who got injured. In the meanwhile, Siraj, father of said Manzoor Ahmed with Mushtaq petitioner came on a motor-cycle with Noor Hussain, armed with fire-arms. First informant and others tried to apprehend Manzoor Ahmed but the petitioner with his companions threatened them and thereafter all of them decamped.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that no role whatsoever was ascribed to the petitioners qua the deceased. Contended that they came at the spot after the occurrence and in such circumstances application of section 34, P.P.C. cannot be attracted. Argued that it is not clear whether the petitioners were armed with any weapon because no specific weapon is ascribed to them. Contended that the concerned S.H.O. investigated the case initially and came to the conclusion that the petitioners were innocent. Thereafter the investigation was transferred to the D.S.P., who challaned the petitioners. Lastly the investigation was conducted by A.S.P. who again came to the conclusion that the petitioners were innocent and have been placed in Column No.2 of the challan. The contentions were vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for State. According to them the case was ripe for trial and the complainant was prepared to produce the entire evidence within a week, therefore, the petitioners may not be bailed out.

3. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file. The only role ascribed to each of the petitioners in the F.I.R. is that they alongwith another came to the spot after the deceased had been attacked and injured. When the petitioners came at the spot neither they nor any of their co-accused attempted to cause injuries to the deceased or to any of the P.Ws. The petitioners have also been placed in Column No.2 of the challan, which makes it a case of further inquiry. Therefore, the petitioners are allowed bail, provided each of them furnishes security in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two sureties each, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Lahore.

N.H.Q./S-445/L

Bail allowed.