MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others vs THE STATE

ORDER

' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners have sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R.

No,481 of 2005, dated 13-9-2005, registered under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Bhikhi, District Sheikhupura.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners along with others while armed with firearms are alleged to have launched an attack on the complainant party, as a result of which Abdul Jabbar was murdered whereas a number of persons from the complainant side sustained injuries. The motive is stated to be revenge for the murder of brother of Muhammad Akram accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the co-accused namely, Jaffar and Imtiaz also armed with rifles had been granted bail by the learned trial Court and the petitioners, whose case was at par with the said co-accused, were also entitled to the concession of bail; that the only allegation levelled against the petitioners was of ineffective firing and no injury had been ascribed to them qua the deceased or the injured P. Ws. That no crime empty was recovered from the place of the occurrence which could be said to have belong to the weapons allegedly carried by the petitioners at the time of occurrence; that the petitioners were arrested on 22-10-2005 and for the last more than 11 months they were behind the bars, hence the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the case of Imtiaz and Jafar, who had been granted bail by the learned trial Court,was not at par with the present petitioners as the said two accused were found to be innocent during the investigation and nothing had been recovered from them; that the weapons of offence, as stated in the F.I.R., had been recovered from the petitioners and two empties of rifle 8 MM had been recovered from the place of the occurrence; that the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., hence the petitioners were not entitled to the concession of bail.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Although the petitioner accused are named in the F.I.R. And specific role of indiscriminate firing is attributed to them, however, no injury qua the deceased or the injured P.Ws. Have been ascribed to them. The weapons of offence allegedly recovered from the petitioners are of no consequence as only two empties of rifle 8 MM were recovered from the spot and it is not the case of the prosecution that 'any of the petitioners was carrying rifle 8 MM. The motive of the alleged occurrence is also not assigned to the petitioners who were behind the bars for the last about 11 months. Although the challan has been submitted but apparently there is no further progress in the same. Whether the petitioners shared common intention with the co-accused, who. Had caused death of the deceased, can be determined at the trial after recording of evidence. However, as the petitioners have not inflicted any injury on the deceased or P.Ws. As stated earlier, their case is, therefore, one of further inquiry. Reference is made to the cases of Khushi Muhammad and another v. The State (PLJ 1999 Cr.0 Lah. 262) and Khadim Hussain v. The State and another (1981 SCMR 1115), Needless to state that two co-accused of the petitioners who were also armed with firearms and similar allegations had been levelled against them, have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court.

7. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioners areallowed bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.