2001 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafarullah and another 1986 SCMR 1380 and 1996 PCr.LJ 1422 ref. Muhammad Saleem Jessar for Applicant. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and

3. G.A. Shahani, Addl. A. G. for the State. In the incident, accused Sadoro is only attributed the fatal gun shot injury to the deceased namely Qabool Muhammad. As far the rest accused challaned in the case namely Abdul Majeed, Shahid, Manzoor and Wazir, the allegation against them is that accused Abdul Majeed and Shahid were armed with hatchets while accused Manzoor and Wazir had guns at the time of incident. Admittedly, all these four accused are not alleged to have caused any injury to anyone and. there is no overt act alleged against them. The accused Abdul Majeed was granted post‑arrest bail by the learned trial Court while the remaining co‑accused Shahid, Manzoor and Wazir respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to this Criminal Miscellaneous Application were granted pre-arrest bail. The learned counsel for the applicant has frankly stated that bail granted to co‑accused Abdul Majeed as he was allowed bail after remaining in custody. His attention was drawn to the case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafarullah and another reported in 1986 SCMR 1380, where after the learned counsel for the applicant feebly argued and has stated that he has filed present application at the instructions of the applicant. The learned counsel, however, agreed that the case of co‑accused Abdul Majeed and respondent Shahid is exactly identical, while the cases of respondents Manzoor and Wazir he agreed were not different from the cases of co‑accused Abdul Majeed and Shahid. Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, Advocate appearing for the respondents argued that the respondents were not attributed any overt act. There was no allegation against them except mere presence, which in view of the enmity between the parties calls for further enquiry into the guilt of the respondents. He relied upon 1996 PCr.LJ 1422. Mr. G.A. Shahani, Additional Advocate‑General, Sindh has supported the order of the learned trial Court granting bail to three respondents. Admittedly, the case of co‑accused Abdul Majeed and the case of the respondents is not distinguishable. The respondents are only alleged to be present at the place of incident. Nothing has been attributed against them except firing in the air by the respondents Manzoor and Wazir. Such allegation like an allegation of instigation creates scope of further enquiry into the guilt of the accused, so charged. I have gone through the material placed on the record and the impugned order, dated 18‑4‑2000 of the learned trial, Court. There appears nothing wrong in the order which is hereby maintained. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.93 of 2000 is dismissed. H.B.T./D‑7/K Application dismissed.