MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus STATE

ORDER

Muhammad Arif and Shaukat Ali petitioners alongwith Khizar are charged with the murder of Farzand Ali deceased and for murderously assaulting Hakim Ali and Muhammad Javid with fire-arms on 12-10-1993.

2. The prosecution, case is that before the occurrence Shaukat Ali and Khizar Hayat accused had quarrelled with the deceased over the turn of getting a loaves baked from a Tanoor. Due to the interference of the people present there, the matter was patched up but shortly afterwards Muhammad Arif carrying a .12 bore gun, Shaukat Ali .7 mm rifle and Khizar armed with a .12 bore gun arrived at the spot. Shaukat Ali raised a Lalkara and fired from his .7 mm rifle at the deceased hitting him on the forehead. Muhammad Arif and Khizar followed him and fired at Hakim Ali and Muhammad Javid P.Ws. with their respective weapons. Farzand Ali deceased succumbed to the injuries.

3. Bail for Muhammad Arif and Shaukat Ali petitioners is urged on the grounds that the prosecution has thrown its net too wide by implicating all the three brothers. According to the learned counsel, the medical evidence belies the ocular account to the effect that Shaukat Ali had fired a rifle shot at the deceased. In the post-mortem examination report two pellets were recovered from the brain matter of the deceased. According to him, there is a possibility that the deceased and the injured P.Ws. might have received injuries on account of a single gunshot. According to him, injuries of Hakim Ali and Muhammad Javid P.Ws. were of pellets of gunshot and not of .7 mm rifle.

4. As regards Muhammad Arif petitioner, it is stated that he had no motive to participate in the occurrence. He was not allegedly present at the Tanoor where the initial quarrel had taken place between the parties, nor is he alleged to have fired at the deceased. Only simple injuries to Hakim Ali P.W. are attributed to him. No gun was recovered from his possession. Being a night occurrence, it would not have been possible to identify the petitioner and his co accused.

5. Since motive and fatal injuries are attributed to Shaukat Ali petitioner, I do not consider him entitled to bail at this stage and accordingly dismiss his application. However, the case of Muhammad Arif petitioner is considered to be distinguishable from him. He is not alleged to have fired at the deceased, only simple injuries to a P.W. are attributed to him. The motive is also not ascribed to him. No recovery was made at his instance. He is a brother of the other co-accused.

In the above circumstances, his case appears to be one of further inquiry. Accordingly, I admit him to bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Kasur.

N.H.Q./M-1783/L Order accordingly.