MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus STATE

Muhammad Ramzan has moved this application for grant of bail after arrest. He is an accused in criminal case registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. with Police Station Mitroo, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari on 10-2-1988.

The case was registered at the instance of Shahana. It was alleged that the complainant and the P.Ws. were attracted by hue and cry and when they reached at the place of occurrence, they found Falak Sher was lying on the ground and Maqbool Ahmad was holding him from the feet while Muhammad Ramzan, the petitioner, was holding from. the head and Muhammad Siddique the third accused, who was armed with a stick was flogging him, when the complainant and P.Ws. reached the scene the accused made their escape good. The injured succumbed to the injuries while being taken to the hospital. It was alleged that the motive for the occurrence was that Falak Sher was married with Mst. Fatima sister of the Siddique accused and in exchange he had given her minor daughter aged 6/7 years old to the Muhammad Siddique, who was not accepting this exchanged marriage. As a result of that he was not allowing his sister to perform her matrimonial obligations but the deceased and his wife were meeting each other occasionally against his wishes. This infuriated the accused Muhammad Siddique and resulted in this occurrence.

2. The police investigated the case and submitted the challan in the Court of Sessions Judge, Vchari on 6-3-1988. The petitioner moved for bail after arrest in the Court of Sessions Judge, Vehari, who rejected the same vide order, dated 15-7-1988, hence present petition.

3. The notice was issued to the State and a report was sent for from the Sessions Judge, Vehari, as to the time likely to be taken up for fixation of the murder case. According to the report dated 14-5-1989 the murder case appears at serial number 26 of the list of murder cases and likely to be fixed in December, 1989.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the bail application has argued that the petitioner was born on 2-3-1972. Therefore, was under the age of 16 years on 10-2-1988, on the date of occurrence. It is further argued that the petitioner was empty-handed and at the best he only facilitated the crime. It is maintained that there was no motive for the petitioner and ocular evidence is contradicted by the medical evidence.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has argued that the petitioner is duly named in the F.I.R., the witnesses have implicated him and he has been assigned specific role.

6. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of both sides and gone through the File. The petitioner was horn, according to the school leaving certificate, on 2-3-1972. This has not been controverted by the prosecution. This way the petitioner was admittedly below the age of 16 years at the time of occurrence. Therefore, his case is covered by the first proviso to section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioner was admittedly empty-handed and no injury has been attributed to him. Moreover, according to the prosecution evidence the deceased was lying with his face towards the ground, while Siddique accused was inflicting stick blows on his legs and buttocks but there are also injuries on the face, nose and head. There is prima facie no explanation for the same. This makes it a case of further enquiry.

7. The result is that keeping in view all these facts I allow the petitioner's bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Vehari.

N.H.Q./M-1365/L Bail granted.