MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus IBRAHIM

ORDER

Through this application, the bail allowed to the respondent Muhammad Ibrahim in a murder case is sought to be cancelled. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent Ibrahim armed with a rifle and his co‑accused Allah Ditta and Ahmad Hayat armed with ' guns had aggressed on the complainant side in the Baithak of Lal Hussain P.W. It is alleged that co‑accused Allah Ditta fired two shots hitting Lal Hussain P.W. Similarly, Ahmad Hayat co‑accused also fired two shots hitting the deceased Allah Bakhsh. Respondent Ibrahim is alleged ‑to have fired a rifle shot which did not hit anyone.

2. The occurrence took place within the area of village Shah Hussain on 5th of July, 1987 at 1 p.m. while it was reported at the police station on the next day i.e. 6th of July, 1987 at 7‑10 a.m. The learned counsel for the petitioner Syed Ehtesham Qadir Shah, Advocate, states that in the first instance, the deceased who was injured and the other injured P.Ws were taken to the hospital at Quaidabad situated at a distance of 30 miles from the place of occurrence and the police station is situated at a distance of 26 miles from the place of occurrence. The medico‑legal reports of the injured and the deceased were obtained at about 7‑30 p.m. and thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged.

3. In support of this application seeking cancellation of bail, it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one crime empty of 7 mm rifle was recovered from the spot and subsequent thereto, a rifle was also recovered and, therefore, this establishes the participation of the respondent in the crime. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that reasons advanced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing bail to the respondent are not legal, inasmuch as the delay stands explained and secondly, it is not a case of further enquiry.

4. After anxious consideration, I am of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly observed that it will be for the trial Court to determine whether the respondent shared the common intention or not and this fact could only be elicited after recording evidence and therefore no exception can be taken to the finding to the effect that it was a case of further enquiry. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the order granting bail to the respondent, therefore, this petition is dismissed.

M. Y.H./M‑476/L Petition dismissed.