GHULAM MURTAZA Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Petitioner Ghulam Murtaza son of Haji Saleh Muhammad seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.595 of 2002, dated 3-12-2002, offence under sections 302/148/149/109/447, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Khairpur Tamaiwali, District Bahawalpur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Baqa Muhammad, complainant, stated before police on 3-12-2002 that there was litigation between him and his brother Saleh Muhammad son of Ali Muhammad regarding land measuring 4 acres situated in village Syed Imam Shah and Saleh Muhammad had obtained stay order from Civil Judge, Khairpur but the same was vacated 8/10 days back and he (complainant) obtained the possession of the same. He further stated that Saleh Muhammad threatened him to deliver him possession but he refused. The complainant mentioned that on 2-12-2002 at about 11.30 p.m. Muhammad Ameer Khan armed with rifle 0.222, Ghulam Murtaza (petitioner), Mahmood alias Mooda armed with rifle and Rab Nawaz alias Rabu son of Sarwar armed with gun 0.12 bore reached the spot on a tractor. He further mentioned that accused raised ' Lalkara' and asked them to deliver possession of land but he refused whereupon accused started indiscriminate firing. Muhammad Ameer Khan fired at Ghulam Shabbir (complainant's son) with his rifle 0.222, which hit him on his chest and he died at the spot. They raised alarm whereupon residents of the village reached the spot and accused fled away on their tractor. The complainant stated that this occurrence took place at the instance of his brother, Saleh Muhammad. On his statement present case was registered against the accused.

3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that according to F.I.R., petitioner was not armed with any weapon at the time of occurrence and that he (petitioner) was driving the tractor at that time, that lie was arrested on 22-12-2002 but trial has not been concluded so far; that no injury has been attributed to him; that Rab Nawaz co-accused was allowed bail by this Court on 12-5-2003 and case of the petitioner is identical with the case of Rab Nawaz, therefore, he too deserves concession of bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have opposed this application on the grounds that petitioner was driving the tractor and forcibly occupied the land in question and that charge has already been framed by trial Court.

6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. The prosecution case is that petitioner and his co- accused reached the spot on a tractor. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was driving tractor at the relevant time. He was not armed with any weapon at the time of occurrence. No injury to deceased or P.W. has been attributed to him. He is in judicial lock-up since 22-12-2002. Rab Nawaz, co-accused, was allowed bail by this Court on 12-5-2003 and the case of the petitioner is identical with the case of Rab Nawaz. In these circumstances, without going into the merit of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner, therefore, application brought by him is accepted and he is allowed bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

H.B.T./G-335/L Bail granted.