UMAR NASIR Versus State
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.662/15 dated 14.08.2015 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 337-A(i), P.P.C., (section 7 Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 later on deleted) registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is named in the FIR with specific role of causing firearm injuries on the person of Mst. Sakina Bibi deceased, mother of the complainant, and the role attributed to the petitioner in FIR is prima facie borne out from post-mortem report of the deceased. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great emphasis on the ground that co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Saleem Nasir, Waqas Nasir and Saeed alias Lakha have been allowed post-arrest bail by this Court and the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession on the rule of consistency. In this regard, it is an admitted position of the case that Muhammad Saleem Nasir co-accused was found liable only to the extent of abetting co-accused for the commission of alleged offence, whereas co-accused Waqas Nasir was found to be present at the spot empty handed and co-accused Saeed alias Lakha was not even named in FIR. The petitioner is not only named in' FIR with specific role of causing firearm injuries to the deceased but he has also been found involved in this case during two successive investigations, therefore, the case of the prosecution against the petitioner is quite distinguishable from that against his co-accused. Apart from the above, the prosecution witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. have fully implicated the petitioner in this case and they still stand by their stance. Moreover, the empties collected by the investigating officer during spot inspection have also matched with the weapon of offence recovered from the petitioner and the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory is available on the file, which is positive. Thus to the extent of the petitioner prima facie sufficient incriminating material is available on record to connect him with the commission of alleged offence. He is involved in triple murder case and the offence with which he is charged also falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. For what has been discussed above, this petition has got no force and the same is hereby dismissed.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.
MQ/U-1/L Bail refused.