MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. This is an application for the bail of Muhammad who is facing trial under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No. 38 of 1984 at Police Station Gadap, Karachi.

2. The allegation against the applicant and his co‑accused are that there has been enemity over piece of land between the complainant party and applicant and his brother Ahmed who reside in their Goth Muhammad Ali tried to settle the matter but applicant did not agree. On 2‑5‑1984 at 6‑45 a complainant's father Muhammad was going for work, when he reached at some distance from his house, applicant, Ahmad, Muhammad Hussain and Bilal who were armed with hatchet started abusing his father. On noise he (complainant) and his brother Jumma came out of the house and saw Muhammad inflicted hatchet blow on the head of his father with the result he fell down and died on the spot. His brother tried to rescue him but they also assaulted him and inflicted injuries. People of the village had come at the spot and applicant and other co‑accused had run away. The role attributed to applicant inflicted hatchet blow on his father's head with the result that he fell down and died on the spot.

3. The present application inter alia is based on the ground there is admitted enemity between the parties. The applicant has filed complaint from Jail against complainant, his brother Jumma, Husain and Urs under section 307/34, P.P.C, which is pending in the Court of VIIIth Assistant Sessions Judge, Karachi and his statement was recorded under section 200, Cr.P.C. and inquiry under section 307 is under progress.

4. Mr. Hasan Jaffar the learned counsel for the applicant has argued that as matter of fact, the occurrence has also a counter version. The complainant party caused injuries over the head of the applicant and co‑accused Ahmed and they were sent to the hospital.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that a private complaint giving a counter version has also been instituted.

6. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Manghi learned Assistant Advocate‑General has opposed the bail application.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care and after going through the F.I.R., the counter version private complaint.

8. During the occurrence applicant and co‑accused Ahmed also suffered injuries. The prosecution has suppressed this fact in the F.I.R. Furthermore, it will be a serious question for consideration at the trial as to which party was aggressor, therefore, it is a case of further inquiry under section 497`(2), Cr.P.C.

9. In view of the above and without prejudice to the merits of the case the applicant is granted bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi.

10. S. G. D. Bail allowed.