LIAQAT ALI and anothers vs THE STATE

ORDER

' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Liaqat Ali and Ejaz petitioners have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,523 registered at Police Station, Phool Nagar, District Kasur on 5-8- 2003 in respect of offences under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C.

2. The petition in hand happens to be the fourth petition filed by the petitioners before this Court seeking the same relief in the self-same criminal case. Their first petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No,4399- B of 2004) had been disposed of by this Court as having been withdrawn vide order dated 5-7-2004. The second petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No,5079-B of 2004) filed by the petitioners had been dismissed by this Court on 30-7-2004 after the learned counsel for the petitioners had addressed elaborate arguments in support of the said petition but had remained unable to convince this Court regarding the petitioner's bail. The third petition filed by the petitioners before this Court was Criminal Miscellaneous No,8213-B of 2004 which again was dismissed by this Court as having been withdrawn on 26-11-2004 after the learned counsel for the petitioners had addressed detailed arguments in support of the said petition but had remained unable to persuade this Court to admit the petitioners to bail. The merits of this case have not undergone any change during the interregnum and the only difference this time is that the petitioners are represented before this Court through a different learned counsel but that surely cannot treated or accepted by this Court as a valid fresh ground for the petitioner's bail.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by me that the occurrence in this case had taken place in broad daylight and an F.I.R. in respect of the same had been lodged with reasonable promptitude. The present petitioners had been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. As members of the accused party which had perpetrated.The alleged offences and definite allegations had been levelled against them therein.

According to the F.I.R. Liaqat Ali petitioner had caused a fire-arm injury on the chest of Masroor Ahmed P.W. And Ejaz petitioner had caused fire-arm injuries on the head and face of the said P.W.

It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R., including the injured victims, have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioners in the alleged offences and prima facie, the medical evidence lends support to the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the F.I.R. According to the persecution the petitioners had come to the place of occurrence along with their co-accused after having armed themselves with fire arms and they had not only actively participated in the alleged occurrence but had actually and effectively used the firearms being carried by them. This prima facie shows sharing of common object by the petitioners with their co-accused. The offences under sections 302 and 324, P.P.C.

Attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. After having become convinced of the petitioner's guilt the local police have already submitted a challan against them which is now pending before the learned trial Court.

4. It may be pertinent to mention here that after registration of this case the petitioners had made themselves scare and they were declared as a proclaimed offenders and proceedings under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. Were taken against them. The petitioners were ultimately arrested in connection with this case in March, 2004. The petitioner's trial has already commenced and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, statement of at least one prosecution witness has already been recorded by the learned trial Court.

5. For what has been discussed above prima facie reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.