MUHAMMAD HAYAT Versus THE STATE

ORDER

F.I.R. No.7, dated 12-1-1996 stands registered at Police Station Saddar, Kabirwala, District Khanewal under section 302/34, P.P.C. at the instance of Muhammad Iqbal with the allegation that on 12-1-1996 at 4-00 p.m. he (complainant) along ith his brother Allah Bakhsh aged 28 years (deceased of this case) and Muhammad Zafar were arriving from Mauza Bahadarwala to the house of his brother Allah Bakhsh in Mauza Sher Garh. In the way he (complainant) sat to urinate Allah Bakhsh stepped ahead who reached the Bheni of Manzoor Magsi where he was surprised by Muhammad Hayat petitioner accused empty-handed and Arif co-accused armed with a .12 bore gun. Muhammad Hayat raised the Lalkara that Allah Bakhsh would not be left alive. On that Muhammad Arif fired at Allah Bakhsh with his .12 bore gun which hit his front chest who fell at the spot and expired. He (complainant) stepped ahead when he was also threatened sy both the accused: Ghulam Shabbir and Noor P.Ws. are stated to have arrived at the spot and saw the occurrence. The motive for the occurrence is that Mahar Nazar father of Muhammad Arif was injured with Sot as by Allah Bakhsh and had insulted him and due to that he was murdered by the accused persons. After investigation of the case the challan was submitted before the Ilaqa Magistrate who in terms of section 190(3), Criminal Procedure Code sent up the same to the Court of Session. The case is stated to have been fixed for trial.

2. The bail application of Muhammad Hayat petitioner has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge with the reasoning that it is a case of vicarious liability. The petitioner has filed this petition in this Court for his admission to bail.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. It is the admitted position that even though the trial has been fixed no witness has been examined as yet. I proceed to dispose of this petition on merits.

4. I fully agree with the learned counsel for Muhammad Hayat petitioner who canvassed before me that it is a case of admission of petitioner to bail on the grounds that he was empty-handed at the time of the alleged occurrence, that only the role of Lalkara is attributed to him and that even though he is related to Muhammad Arif co-accused the direct motive ascribed in the matter can be used against Muhammad Arif co-accused whose father is alleged to have been insulted by Allah Bakhsh deceased. In this view of the matter the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned State Counsel that it is not a case of bail has failed to impress me.

5. I, therefore, accept this application and admit Muhammad Hayat petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the direction to appear before the learned trial Court on every date of hearing failing which his bail may be cancelled by the learned trial Court.

6. Copy Dasti subject to payment of charges.

N.H.Q./M-285/L ail allowed.