Syed HAIDER ALI SHAH vs THE STATE

ORDER

' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---Syed Haider Ali Shah and Syed Riaz Shah alias Laddoo Shah, the petitioners, by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.7388-B and 9170-B of 2005, seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.

No,558, dated 6-11-2003, registered at Police Station, Sharaqpur Sharif, District Sheikhupura for offences under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C., at the instance of Abid Hussain, brother of Liaqat Ali alias Dhungi deceased. I propose to dispose of both these petitions through this single order.

2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioners, according to the F.I.R. Was that they while carrying rifles .44 bore along with their co-accused, namely, Zakir Shah, Bashir Shah, Baqir Shah, armed with rifles 44 bore, Safdar Shah armed with a chopper and Maqbool Ahmad, armed with a rifle .7 MM, firstly raised Lalkaras and then fired with their respective weapons, during the course of which a fire shot had landed on the backside of head of Liaqat Ali alias Dhungi, who fell down and when Liaqat Dhudhi went forward to rescue Liaqat Ali alias Dhungi, Riaz Shah alias Laddu Shah (the petitioner) fired a shot through his rifle, which struck Liaqat Dhudhi on his left thigh. Thereafter, all the accused indulged in reckless firing as a result of which two pasersby, namely, Mukarram Ali and Arshad received injuries. They were shifted to hospital for treatment of their injuries, whereas Liaqat Ali alias Dhungi breathed his last at the spot.

3. The petitioners had been arrested on 3-12-2003 and are behind the bars ever since. Their plea for post-arrest bail was turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura vide his orders dated 5-5-2005 and 24-11-2005, respectively. Hence, these petitions.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record brought by Muhammad Saleem, S.-I.

5. Insofar as the allegation against Syed Haider Ali Shah (petitioner in Crl. M. No,7388-B of 2005) is concerned, he along with his co-accused raised Lalkaras and thereafter indulged in reckless firing, during the course whereof two passersby, namely Mukkaram and Arshad suffered injuries. The case of the petitioner is at par with that of his co-accused Baqir Shah, against whom similar allegations had been brought, and had been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 28-9- 2005 passed in Crl. Miscellaneous No,4894-B of 2005. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the said order and keeping in view the rule of consistency, I admit Syed Haider Ali Shah petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bai' bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each :n the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

6. Insofar as Syed Riaz Shah alias Laddoo Shah (petitioner in Crl. Miscellaneous No,9170-B of 2005) is concerned, his case is slightly different from that of Syed Haider Shah and Baqir Shah. The role assigned to him was that he inflicted a fire-arm injury on the left thigh of Liaqat Dhudhi P.W., when the latter moved forward to rescue Liaqat Ali alias Dhungi deceased. It has been observed that during the course of investigation it had been alleged by the accused side that the injury allegedly caused to Liaqat Dhudhi P.W. By Syed Riaz Shah petitioner was a self-suffered one and that he be got reexamined. Resultantly, on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, the matter was referred to the Standing Medical Board headed by the Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital Sheikhupura for re-examination. The Board summoned the said Liaqat Dhudhi, the injured P.W., on as many as three dates i.e, 2-12-2003, 16-12-2003 and 23-12-2003, however, the latter failed to appear before the Board and did not make himself available for re- examination. The injury allegedly suffered by Liaqat Dhudhi had been declared to be one falling under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C., which entails maximum punishment of three years' imprisonment.

There is no allegation against Syed Riaz Shah petitioner that he ever caused any injury to either of the deceased persons. Insofar as the injury suffered by Mukarram Ali, a passerby, which according to the father of said Mukarram Ali, had been caused by Syed Riaz Shah petitioner, it is available on the record that a compromise has been effected with the legal heirs of Mukarram Ali and to that extent Diyat amount has been paid. The case of Muhammad Umar v. The State and another PLD 2004 SC 477 relied upon by the learned counsel for Syed Riaz Shah petitioner is quite apt. In the said case, while allowing bail to the accused, who had illegally fired causing injury on the outer side of the right leg's middle part of the injured witness, the Honourable apex Court has observed that prima facie he appeared to have no intention to fire upon any vital part of the said witness for the purpose of launching murderous assault. Likewise the case of Sarfraz alias Sarri v. State PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (Lahore) 612 also advances the case of the petitioner, wherein the accused, who had allegedly been assigned the role of causing one fire-arm injury on the right of a prosecution witness and no injury to the deceased, had been allowed bail by this Court while observing that the question of his vicarious liability is to be gone into at the trial and his case calls for further probe.

7. For what has been discussed above, the culpability of Syed Raiz Shah petitioner and his vicarious liability needs further inquiry within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, I admit Syed Riaz Shah alias Laddoo Shah petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

8. It has been observed that the instant case had been registered as far back as on 6-11-2003 and the trial has yet not concluded. Mr. Shehram Sarwar Chaudhry, the learned counsel for the complainant assures that all private witnesses would be produced on the next date of hearing. In this situation, I direct the learned trial Court to process with the trial expeditiously and conclude the same within four months of the receipt of this order.

9. Before parting with this order. I would like to add that observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are not designed to influence the course of the trial.