ABDUL SATTAR Versus STATE

ORDER

In the occurrence, which had taken place on 14‑4‑1993 one person namely Liaqat had been murdered while four of his family members Mst. Naseem, Mst. Rehana, Abdul Shakoor and Liaqat had been murderously assaulted by the accused party and all five of them have received fire‑arm injuries. Abdul Sattar petitioner was alleged armed with a Carbine and had been burdened with a fire‑arm injury in the abdomen of Mst. Naseem, P.W.

2. The learned counsel canvassed bail for Abdul Sattar on the ground that he had not caused any injury to the deceased; that according to the investigation agency he was not armed at the time of occurrence and that in the circumstances he was entitled to the concession of bail.

3. It is true that Abdul Sattar, petitioner has not been saddled with any injury on the person of the deceased but as per the accusations contained in the F.I.R. he had taken active part in the occurrence in question, inasmuch as he was armed with a fire‑arm and had used the same to cause 'an injury on the person of one P.Ws. So far as other submission is concerned, the learned counsel has not been able to support the contention regarding the alleged finding of Investigating Officer that the petitioner was empty handed at the time of occurrence nor was A.A.‑G. been able to find any entry in the police file in verification of this plea.

4. This being so, I find no merits in the bail petition, which is accordingly dismissed.

H.B.T./A‑835/L Petition dismissed.