ABDUL HAQ Versus THE STATE
Zaheer Alam, complainant, in this case reported at Police Station Sadar Kamoki, District Gujranwala on 4‑6‑1987 that in the morning at 7‑30 a.m. he alongwith his brother Mehboob Alam (deceased), Wazir Khan and Munshi Khan P.Ws. were present at the Hotel of Banaras near Adda Majju Chak when all of a sudden Liaqat armed with rifle, Ashiq, Jamil and the petitioner Abdul Haq armed with .12 bore guns came there and opened fire on them. Liaqat Ali co‑accused of the petitioner aiming at Mahbub Alam fired a shot which hit his right eye, as a result of which he fell dead. Motive for the offence was stated to be that on the previous evening Maqsood belonging to the complainant's party had quarrelled with Shaukat, a party‑man of the petitioner and as a sequel to this quarrel the parties clashed and at last it culminated to the instant murder.
2. The petitioner as well as his co‑accused were arrested on 12th June, 1987. On the same day .12 bore gun was recovered from the petitioner. It may be mentioned that no empty had been seized from the spot.
3. It is vehemently contended on behalf of the petitioner, that before the registration of the instant case Shaukat, a relative of the petitioner, had got a case registered under section 307, P.P.C. against the partymen of the complainant (F.I.R. No. 256 of 1987 under sections 148, 324 read with section 149, P.P.C.) in which Abdul Haq, petitioner, was cited as witness for the prosecution. As a matter of fact the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence but he has been named in the F.I.R. due to enmity and to pressurise him to desist from appearing as P.W. in the said case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposing the petition submitted that the petitioner is vicariously liable for the offence of murder and no matter if his shot did not hit anybody, he does not deserve concession for grant of bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record of the case. Since nobody was hit with the shot fired by the petitioner, therefore, the question whether the petitioner had participated in the occurrence or not needs further inquiry, which can now be undertaken at the trial. The parties are admittedly inimical towards each other. In the circumstances, I would allow this petition and direct that he shall be released subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.
S.A./A‑324/L Bail allowed.