TANVIR SHAHID Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE

ORDER

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.242 of 1998, dated 13-6-1998 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Police Station Sattiana District FaisaLahad. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. briefly stated is that on the fateful day there was a quarrel between the children and Bashir son of Abdul Sattar had beaten son of Muhammad Iqbal co-accused. On the afore-referred account, Muhammad Iqbal co-accused armed with Chhuri accompanied by the petitioner empty-handed went to the house of Muhammad Bashir. Muhammad Iqbal raised Lalkara, whereas the petitioner caught hold of Muhammad Bashir through Japha and Muhammad Iqbal inflicted Chhuri blow. which is fatal.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for bail on the ground that the involvement of the petitioner is false; that the petitioner, is not connected with the motive part of the prosecution story as he is not related to Muhammad Iqbal; that in all the four investigations conducted by the A.S.-I., S.H.O., A.S.P. and the Range Crimes, the petitioner was found to be innocent and the role attributed to him could not be proved. Relies on Shahid v. The State 1994 SCMR 393 and Mehmood Akhtar and another v. Haji Nazir Ahmad and 4 others 1995 SCMR 310 to contend that the question whether the petitioner facilitated the causing of Chhuri blow would require further inquiry.

3. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer while submitting that the petitioner is specifically named; that he facilitated the task of afore-referred case to give the fatal blow to Muhammad Bashir deceased; that as the petitioner is accused in the case which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that no case for bail is made out.

4. Heard

5. Admittedly, the petitioner has been declared innocent during all the investigations. It is not denied that petitioner is not related to Muhammad Iqbal principal accused. The question whether Muhammad Iqbal really required the assistance of the petitioner to cause the single blow requires further inquiry. The precedent case-law which reference has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner in Mst. Barkat Bibi v. Gulzar and another 1979 SCMR 65, the bail granted to the accused by the High Court was cancelled as the said accused had come armed to the spot alongwith principal accused and had caused an injury to the eye-witness and besides that he caught hold of Mst. Parveen deceased, whereafter principal accused caused three dagger blows to her. This, therefore, on the face of it is distinguishable.

6. In the afore-referred circumstances, this application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned', trial Court.

H.B.T./M-1083/L

Bail application allowed