ABBAS Versus STATE

ORDER

The petitioner seeks bail in a case F.I.R. No.167, dated 29-9-1993 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Warburton, District Sheikhupura.

2. F.I.R. in this case is based upon statement of Muhammad Saeed, who was first injured on 25-9-1993 and died about two months later on 18-11-1993. According to F.I.R., Muhammad Saeed went out to fields at 9-15 p.m. on 25-9-1993 when the petitioner allegedly fired at him with carbine injuring him on the chest and abdomen. Muhammad Malik, real brother of Muhammad Saeed and one Javed reached the spot on hearing the fire-shot and saw two persons running away. For motive, it was alleged that the petitioner nursed a grudge against Muhammad Saeed for his betrothal to Mst. Azra Bibi.

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this case is totally false and that Muhammad Saeed when taken to hospital was unconscious and had stated before Dr. Tafheem Haider, S.M.O. that on the day of occurrence some unknown dacoits had fired at him and as a matter of fact that was the first version of the case. The petitioner has also been declared innocent vide Zimni, dated i1-4-1994 by the Range Crimes Branch, Lahore who also opined that .12 bore shot gun has been foisted on the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner by stating that it was a case of murder and petitioner had fired fatal shot.

5. A murder, no doubt, is a serious crime and ordinarily a person accused of such an offence does not deserve any concession. But, since an F.I.R. is not a sacred testament, it has to be seen whether he accusation contained therein is based on solid footing or the same has some dents in it, making, on a rational and judicious examination in a gene -al A perspective of the whole material on record, existence of second view possible. This existence of possibility of a second view about the accusation may entitle an accused person to be considered for being released on bail in appropriate cases.

6. In the case in hand it was a night-time occurrence which took place inn open fields. Muhammad Saeed, injured was not unconscious after the occurrence, as he had informed the D.Ws. that one of the culprits was identified by him. When the police visited hospital, a brother of Muhammad Saeed declined to make any report saying that only his brother knew about the incident. Muhammad Malik, real brother of Muhammad Saeed and Javed who are witnesses of motive and the incident also; and to whom B Muhammad Saeed had talked to immediately after the incident, did not come forward with any version whatsoever for four days. The statement of examining Senior Medical Officer that Muhammad Saeed, injured, when brought to hospital, had stated before him that he was fired upon by unknown persons/ dacoits, is materially divergent from the narrative contained in delayed F.I.R. made four days later. Then, result of recent investigation has also gone in favour of the petitioner.

7. Considering the cumulative effect of all the factors noted above t e existence of possibility of a second view about culpability of the petitioner cannot be ruled out and as such, his case is found to be that of further enquiry. Consequently the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sheikhupura.

N.H.Q./A-698/L Bail allowed.