AMJAD ALI Versus State

ORDER

MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.--- A rueful incident took place on 29.07.2015 at 10:00 p.m. in the area of Bahak Muqeed-ud-Din, 13-Km distant from Police Station, Wannike Tarar, District Hafizabad in which Sibtain Abbas son of the complainant lost his life whereas Sikandar Ali, complainant Muhammad Shah, Hassan Ali and Tariq Ali were caused injuries by the petitioner and his co- accused mentioned in the FIR.

2. By specificity the role against the petitioner is that he was holding a rifle at the time of incident, made a burst fire shot hitting on the upper part of the belly of the deceased while his co-accused Qaisar Abbas also made a burst fire shot with his rifle hitting on right hand of the deceased.

3. In a prowess, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that incident took place nightly and question of mistaken identity arises; it is a case of cross-version; the injuries on the person of petitioner's party namely Mst. Asmat Bibi, Mst. Asma Bibi, Qaisar Abbas, Amjad Ali (petitioner), Ansar Abbas and Muhammad Inayat were suppressed by the complainant party; partway investigation cross-version was brought on the record and now version of the FIR and the cross-version are being tried simultaneously, therefore, these facts prima facie, calls for further inquiry to the case of the petitioner, thus, instant application may be accepted.

4. Learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition assiduously that the petitioner is solely responsible for the murder of Sibtain Abbas while injuries on the person of opposite party are of blunt means; the deceased died of fire shots and cross-version by itself does not accrue a right to allow bail; where disparity exists is the force used; the offence alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, instant application may be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that after about eight days the cross-version was introduced while no person from the accused party lost his life or was caused any injury with the firearm, in this way equitably and equipoisely the petitioner does not deserve the relief desideratum.

6. Tripartite arguments heard. Record perused.

7. Though the incident took place nocturnally but the parties were known to each other priorly while the source of artificial light has also been introduced by the prosecution. In this way, prima facie, question of mistaken identity may not arise. The petitioner made burst fire shot at deceased Sibtain Abbas resulting in his death. The injury caused by him has been labeled as No. 2 opinionated to be the cause of death explicitly by the doctor whereas X-Ray report of the deceased shows head of bullet available in the abdominal cavity that further adheres the prosecution version. Existence of cross-version does not per-se make out a case of further inquiry particularly when force used by the parties is noticed unequal. Individual role of each culprit if descriptive cannot easily be ignored. The petitioner is principal accused in this case. Offence alleged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, no case exists to allow this petition, thus, the same stands dismissed.

WA/A-26/L Bail refused.