GHULAM FAREED Versus THE STATE

ORDER

This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No.879-B of 1999 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.784-B of 1999.

The petitioners, namely, Muhammad Ashraf and Khan Muhammad in Criminal Miscellaneous No.879/B-99 and Ghulam Fareed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.784/B-

99, while facing charge under sections 302, 337-A(ii)/337-F(i), 148 and 149, P.P.C., registered through F.I.R. No. 369, dated 8-9-1998 at Police Station Qabule Sharif, District Pakpattan Sharif, have sought post -arrest bail through the present petitions on refusal of the same by the learned Special Court, Multan, established under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975.

2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on the fateful day, Muhammad Ashraf, Khan Muhammad, Ghulam Farid, petitioners, and Raees Khan armed with Sotas while Usman Ghani armed with rifle attacked on the complainant party. Usman Ghani allegedly fired two successive shots on Muhammad Ashraf deceased, real brother of Ghulam Ashiq, complainant and caused injuries on his abdomen and right thigh whereas Muhammad Ashraf, the present petitioner, caused Sota blows on the head and left hand of Muhammad Ashraf deceased. Muhammad Abbas and Lai Khan, when interfered to rescue Muhammad Ashraf deceased, Khan Muhammad petitioner allegedly caused Sota blow to Muhammad Abbas, whereas Farid petitioner and Raees accused caused injuries with Sota to Lai Khan. The occurrence was the result of dispute over the flow of drain water in front of the house of Muhammad Ashraf deceased.

3. Learned counsel representing Muhammad Ashraf petitioner does not press this application to his extent and seeks permission to withdraw the same. Therefore, the bail application to the extent of Muhammad Ashraf petitioner is dismissed as withdrawn.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners namely Khan Muhammad and Ghulam Farid who are attributed simple injuries to the P.Ws. contends that despite having opportunity, they did not cause any injury to the deceased, therefore, the question of their vicarious liability and sharing the common intention needs further inquiry.

5. Learned counsel representing the State conversely argued that the petitioners armed with deadly weapons come prepared at the spot, in furtherance of common intention to commit the crime and, therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of bail on the ground that they have not caused any injury to the deceased.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no serious enmity between the parties in the background of the fateful occurrence which was the result of dispute over the flow of drain water in front of the house of the complainant. The parties exchanged hot words shortly before the occurrence in which the present petitioners allegedly armed with Sotas caused injuries to Muhammad Abbas and Lai Khan witnesses. Attending the circumstances in totality, sufficient force is seen in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that despite availability of opportunity, the present petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased and only interfered when Muhammad Abbas and Lai Khan interrupted which fact apparently represents their state of mind of not sharing common intention to kill. Therefore, the pivotal question for determination would be as to whether the petitioners participated in the occurrence with intention to commit Qatl i-Amd of Muhammad Ashraf, brother of the complainant or they simply in support of main accused namely Usman Ghani and Muhammad Ashraf caused injuries to the P.Ws. without any intention to commit an offence punishable with death of imprisonment for life.

H.B.T./G-25/L

Bail granted.