BAHADAR Versus STATE

ORDER

This order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.694/B of 1993 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.1346/B of 1993.

Bahadar petitioner is one of 12/13 persons named as accused in a murder case, registered on 23-12-1992 at Police Station Sadar; Vehari, at the instance of Abdul Sattar, whose son Abdul Hafeez was shot dead, and other sons, Abdul Aziz, Muhammad Rafique and Abdul Latif were caused injuries. The complainant himself was also injured in the occurrence.

2. Bahadar has applied for bail, and two other accused persons, namely Muhammad Younas and Khurshid have submitted a separate bail petition. Learned counsel for Bahadar has submitted that in the course of investigation Bahadar has been found not to have caused fatal injury to the deceased, although he was allegedly armed with a gun, and according to the F.I.R. narrative was mainly responsible for causing intentional death of Abdul Hafeez (deceased). The Investigating Officer is said to have come to the conclusion that Baggu son of Karman had actually caused the fatal fire-arm injury to the deceased. Conclusions arrived at by the investigating agency being not in accord with the narration of the facts, given in the F.I.R. by the complainant, the prosecution case against the accused persons, all of them indeed, would become one of further enquiry, it is urged with vehemence.

3. In so far as Bahadar's role in the heinous incident is concerned, I am afraid, gravity of the same cannot be minimised, merely in view of certain findings having been given by one of so many Investigating Officers who had remained associated with the process. According to the complainant, as stated in the F.I.R. it was he who had, on arming himself with .12 bore gun, initiated the assault and fired straight at Abdul Hafeez, a young man of 23 years of age, inflicting pellet injuries on different parts of his body. He succumbed to the injuries, there and then, and expired, on having a fall on the ground, within no time. Ipsi dixit of the police is not binding on the Court, it is so well-known. I would not be swayed by the finding of the Police Officer, who might well have been won over, in order, probably, to save a well-to-do and an influential person of the village. He shied the blame on to the shoulders of a "Musalli" or a "moeen", Bagga by name. Since Bagga's name did not find mention in the F.I.R., in any context, although afterwards in- the investigation he was also found to have played a material part in the occurrence, he was able to have himself admitted to bail, that was allowed to him, as also to Allah Dad accused, by the learned lower Court. Bahadar, who is the principal culprit, according to the complainant, which version he still steadfastly owns, no indulgence can be allowed to him in the matter of his enlargement on bail; and he will have to wait for the result of the trial. Being nephew of Haji Bagga, who is the subsequent purchaser of the land, he was expected to have joined hands with Haji Bagga's sons and their other accomplices, in an armed attempt made to get possession of the disputed piece of land, which the complainant claims to have, as first purchaser thereof, brought under cotton crop, and it could not be said that Bahadar had no motive at all for making an assault as has been'' E maintained by his counsel. His bail petition is, therefore, rejected.

4. It has been submitted before me that Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station Sadar, Vehari, in his Zimni, dated 24-12-1992, had found Younas to be innocent and Bahadar not to be responsible for the murder of Abdul Hafeez, and according to him, one Bagga had played the pivotal role. Abdul Hafeez, D.S.P., Vehari, in his Zimni, dated 27-12-1992, also gave a finding in favour of innocence of Muhammad Younas accused. The same was the finding of Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Sadar Vehari, who in his case diary dated 10-1-1993, observed that Haji Bagga, Qutba and Wazir accused also were innocent. This finding was concurred in by Abdul Hafeez, D.S.P. on 10-2-1993. S.P. Vehari, on 13-4-1993, recorded a finding to the effect that Haji Bagga, Riaz, Younas, Wazir and Outba were innocent. Muhammad Bakhsh Anjum, D.S.P., on as recently as 8-9-1993, has stuck to the same position. In so far as vicarious liability of all the accused person, for the results of the I assault, goes, determination thereof, it will not be possible to make at bail stage. As regards Muhammad Younas accused his prayer for release on bail has not been resisted by the prosecution even. Khurshid accused is stated to have injured the complainant and his son Abdul Aziz, but the injuries are of simple character. They both are admitted to bail, each in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Vehari.

N.H.Q./B-97/L Order accordingly.