MUHAMMAD NAZIR AHMED vs STATE & another

ORDER

This is 3rd post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner before this Court. The earlier two petitions on the subject Bearing Crl. Misc. No, 997-B/2012 and Crl. Misc. No, 4712-B/2012 were dismissed as withdrawn after addressing arguments at some length.

2. Muhammad Nazir Ahmed/petitioner by means of instant petition has sought for his post arrest bail in case FIR No, 699, dated 03.10.2010, offence under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, PPC, registered at Police Station Aroop, District Gujranwala, on the complaint of Muhammad Ilyas son of Muhammad Ramzan, Complainant/ Respondent No 2.

3. Prosecution story in brief, as per contents of the crime report, is that on 03.10.2010, at 7:30 p.m. the complainant alongwith Muhammad Rafique, Muhammad Faryad, Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Ibrahim was sitting at main gate of haveli of Muhammad Aslam on cots.

In the meanwhile the petitioner alongwith other accused persons, all armed with fire-arm weapons, appeared there and started indiscriminate firing due to which Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Haleem, Muhammad Ramzan Muhammad. Boota and Muhammad Sharif were done to death on the spot whereas Abdullah, Muhammad Saleem and Muhammad Ibrahim sustained injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in the instant case against the actual facts and circumstances. Learned counsel vehemently contends that allegation of general firing has been alleged against the petitioner and other co-accused and no specific role has been ascribed to the petitioner. Adds that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer arrived at the conclusion that the occurrence had been committed by Umar, Muhammad Ashraf and Asoo Body-Guard and the present petitioner had no link with the same as such the petitioner was found innocent. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner urges, prosecution case against the petitioner squarely becomes one of further inquiry into his guilt falling under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Learned counsel next argues that Muhammad Boota, Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Bashir having been assigned similar role have already been admitted to bail by learned trial Court and by this Court, hence the petitioner is entitled to the same relief on the plea of consistency.

5. Contrarily, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with the submissions that the petitioner is named in the crime report, who being member of an unlawful assembly while armed with fire-arm weapon alongwith his other co-accused resorted to indiscriminate firing and during the occurrence as many as six innocent persons lost their lives whereas two received injuries and act of the petitioner being that of a hardened and desperate criminal attracts the provisions of 497(4), Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner had remained absconder for a considerable period. During the course of investigation, learned Deputy Prosecutor General submits, the Investigating Officer having found the petitioner guilty placed his name in place in Column No, 3 of the report prepared under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Adds that bulk of prosecution evidence including statements of prosecution witnesses of occular account has already been recorded and conclusion of trial is within sight, hence at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant, as well as, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and gone through the record available on file.

7. Admittedly the petitioner is named in the crime report, who being part of an unlawful assembly while armed with fire-arm weapon resorted to indiscriminate firing and due to the act of-the petitioner and other co-accused, six innocent persons lost their lives, whereas, two received fire-arm injuries. Prima facie act of the petitioner can be termed as that of a hardened and desperate criminal falling under Sections 497(4), Cr.P.C. It is also an admitted fact that after the occurrence the petitioner remained fugitive from law and proceedings under Section 87/88 of the Criminal Procedure Code were also initiated against him. Nevertheless it was the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was found innocent during the course of investigation, however, the same does not find support from the record available on file as while preparing report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. the Investigating Officer had placed his name in Column No, 3.

8. During the course of arguments the learned Deputy Prosecutor General had apprised the Court that bulk of prosecution evidence including statements of the prosecution witnesses of occular account already stand recorded. Hence, in view of ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Muhammad Sadik and others Vs. The State (1980 SCM R 203), Gul Akbar Vs. The State (2007 SCM R 1798) and Muhammad Hanif Vs. Shafqat Nazir and others (2007 SCM R 1857), when bulk of prosecution evidence has already been recorded, ordinarily, superior Courts do not comment upon the plausibility of the prosecution story while deciding auxiliary matters like bail petitions.

9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court has been persuaded to hold that prima facie reasonable grounds do exist regarding the culpability of the petitioner to saddle him with the liability coupled with the fact that bulk of prosecution evidence has already been recorded and as such the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail in such circumstances. Resultantly the instant petition is devoid of any force, which is accordingly dismissed.