MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE
ORDER
The brief facts of the case according to F.I.R. are that Mubarak Ali son of Ameer Ali (complainant) stated before police on 29‑4‑2002 at 8‑30 a.m. that his brother Muhammad Khan obtained land measuring 35 acres in village Noorpura Araian on lease and he resided there in the said village alongwith his family members. He further stated that he alongwith Imam Ali son of Muhammad Ameer and Muhammad Yousuf son of Sardar Muhammad were also with his brother Muhammad Khan. He maintained that on the preceding night his brother Muhammad Khan was irrigating his fields whereas Muhammad Yousaf, complainant and Imam Ali were also irrigating some fields and at about 3‑00 a.m. Muhammad Khan came to his Dera to sleep whereas they were present at a distance of two acres from his Dera. He mentioned that at about 4‑00 a.m. they heard fire report whereupon he, Imam Ali and Muhammad Yousaf ran towards Dera and saw Muhammad Aslam son of Mustafa (petitioner) and an unknown person running away from the ' Dera' . At that time Mst. Shahida Parveen (wife of Muhammad Khan) and other persons also reached the Dera and they found Muhammad Khan lying in injured condition after receiving fire‑arm injuries and he died at the spot. He further mentioned that Muhammad Aslam alongwith an, unknown person had killed his brother at the instance of Muhammad Hassan, Muhammad Saleem, Muhammad Saeed, Ghulam Nabi and Ajmal. On his statement present case was registered against the accused. The petitioner was arrested on 5‑6‑2002 Hence this bail application.
2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. He contended that according to F.I.R. complainant and other P.Ws. saw two persons running away from the spot but no other person has been challaned in this case. He further contended that according to F.I.R. occurrence took place during night time (at about‑4.00 a.m.) Therefore, it was not possible for the complainant and P.Ws. to identify the culprits as complainant has not mentioned, in F.I.R. any source of light which makes the prosecution story doubtful. He submits that petitioner had no motive to commit offence and that he is in judicial lock‑up since 5‑6‑2002 but trial has nol commenced so far. He has argued that at the time of occurrence petitioner was aged about 16‑1/2 years and that as per order, dated 28‑4‑2003 passed by trial Court (learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar) he shall be tried under Juvenile Justice System, Ordinance, 2000 and that he is in judicial lock‑up for the last more than one year, therefore according to section 10(7) of Juvenile Justice System, Ordinance, 2000 he deserves concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have opposed this bail application on the grounds that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. that during investigation pistol was recovered from him and that case is fixed for 6‑10‑2003 for framing of charge.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above as per F.I.R. complainant and P.Ws. found Muhammad Aslam, (petitioner) alongwith an unknown person running away from the Dera of deceased. So according to F.I.R. none had seen the petitioner causing injuries on the person of deceased. During investigation no other person had been challaned. Even otherwise occurrence took place at 4‑00 a.m. and complainant has not mentioned any source of light in the F. I. R. So in the circumstances of the case the A case of petitioner is that of further inquiry. Even otherwise as per order dated 28‑4‑2003 learned trial Court accepted the application of petitioner and declared him Juvenile and his case has been separated for trial. He is in judicial lock‑up since 5‑6‑2002 but case is now fixed for 6‑10‑2003 for framing of charge in these circumstances without going into merit of the case I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner, therefore, this application is accepted and he is allowed bail (in case F.I.R. No.108 of 2002 under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Minchinabad) subject to furnishing security in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. However, it is made clear that if petitioner fails to appear before trial Court, during trial the learned trial Court would be competent to cancel his bail.
H.B.T./M‑2265/L Bail granted.