MUHAMMAD ASGHAR Versus THE STATE
ORDER
Petitioners seek bail in the case registered against them and four others under section 302/307/326/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Wazirabad, District Gujranwala on 8-8-1986, for an occurrence alleged to have taken place on the same day at 6/7-00 a.m.
2. According to F.I.R. the petitioners accompanied by Manzur, (their brother), Liaquat and Muhammad Ashraf armed with guns were sitting in the house of Muhammad Khan father of the petitioners. They came out to launch attack on Muhammad Khan's having signalled them after seeing Manzoor Hussain, Nazar Muhammad and Nazir coming from the house while going to their Dera. All the accused who were armed with guns started firing as a result of which Manzur (son of Muhammad Ali), Nazar Muhammad and Nazir Ahmad suffered injuries. All three of them ran to the house of Farooq Ahmad Kashmiri to save their lives and bolted the door from inside. The accused then entered the house of Muhammad Khan Khoji and went up the roof of the house of Farooq Kashmiri through the stairs of house of Muhammad Khan Khoji and fired shots from there as well, as a result of which Manzur, Nazir and Nazar suffered more injuries while being in the courtyard of Farooq Kashmiri. The shot fired by Manzur son of Muhammad Khan Khoji struck Manzur son of Muhammad Ali. The shot fired by Asghar petitioner struck Nazar Muhammad while the shot fired by Arshad had struck Nazir Ahmad. The accused continued firing from their guns. When Manzur, Nazar Muhammad and Nazir Ahmad fell down, the accused dragged them out in the street. On the hue and cry raised by the witnesses, the accused stopped firing. In the meantime Ghafoor son of Muhammad Ali Cheema came there armed with a gun. He started firing, as a result of which some persons from the accused side also received injuries. Manzur son of Muhammad died as a result of injuries.
3. Bail is being sought by the petitioners on the grounds that no allegation has been levelled against them of having caused injuries to Manzur deceased; that in fact the complainant party had launched attack on them at their house, as a result of which their co-accused Manzur and their mother had suffered 8 and 4 injuries respectively, at the hands of the complainant party, while their father had suffered 2 blunt weapon injuries. It has been argued that no explanation has been given of these injuries in the F.I.R. Learned counsel submitted that the accused party have filed a complaint against the complainant party and they have already been summoned to face trial.
Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners are in jail for more than one year.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail contending that the version put forth by the accused during investigation was not accepted and that a complaint was filed by them after the writ petition filed by them seeking a direction for registration of case was dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that explanation has been given in the F.I.R. that some persons from the accused side had suffered injuries, as a result of the firing done by Ghafoor Cheema, although specifically it is not stated as to who was injured.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that no injury to the deceased has been ascribed to the petitioners, is of course, borne out from the F. I. R. but that alone is not a sufficient ground in the circumstances of this case for grant of bail to the petitioners as according to the account of the occurrence given in the F.I.R. they had chased the complainant party to the house of another person where the complainant party had entered to take shelter. However, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is borne out from the police record that their mother Mst. Nur Begum had suffered 2 fire-arm injuries and 2 blunt weapon injuries and Manzur their real brother who is co-accused, had suffered 8 fire-arm injuries. Medico-legal certificate of Muhammad Khan their father bearing 2 blunt weapons injuries is also placed on the police file.
6. The question, thus required for consideration by the trial Court would be as to how mother of the petitioners had suffered injuries, if the occurrence, had taken place at the spot mentioned in the F. I. R. Although no cross-version is registered but the fact remains that the complainant party has been summoned as accused in the complaint filed on behalf of the accused party. Liaquat co-accused of the petitioners, who has. been assigned almost the equal role, was not found to have participated in the occurrence and was discharged after investigation. The petitioners are in jail for the last one year.
For the reasons enumerated above a case of further enquiry appears to have been made out. In the circumstances this petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. Twenty-five thousand each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the, Assistant Commissioner, Wazirabad.
S. A./M-616/L Bail granted.