2011 PLP 849 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.

Through this bail application., applicant has prayed that he be admitted to bail though he is booked in Crime No. 39 of 2010 registered with Police Station Mirpur Mathelo., under sections 302, 337-H(ii), P.P.C. The case of the prosecution set-out in the F.I.R. is that on 12-3-2010 complainant Ashiq Ali was present at Garhi town in the company of witnesses Ali Anwar, Mukhtiar Ahmed and deceased Dadan Gabole where accused Azizullah. Ghulam Rasool armed with Kalashnikovs, Ilyas, Bahsir, Yaseen, Babar alias Babro alias IyIiskeen, Bashir with pistols and Muhammad Alam empty-handed came there and challenged the complainant party as to why they had not withdrawn their cases against accused. On the instigation of accused Muhammad Alim, co-accused Azizullah and Ghulam Rasool made fires upon Dadan which hit him and fell down on the ground. Due to arrival of so many persons, accused persons made aerial firing in order to create harassment and disappeared from the place of incident. Complainant after obtaining letter from Police Station, brought injured Dadan at Civil Hospital, Sukkur for treatment and after leaving him at hospital, he carne to Police Station where he recorded the above F.I.R. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as many as eight persons were nominated in the F.I.R. however; active role was assigned to co-accused Azizullah and Ghulam Rasool, who were armed with Kalashnikovs. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that co-accused Azizullah and Ghulam Rasool have injured one person. He has invited my attention to the F.I.R. wherein present applicant was shown to be armed with pistol. He, further says that no empty of pistol was recovered from the place of Wardhat. He further says that there is previous enmity between the parties and murder case is pending, adjudication. He further says that no role was assigned to the applicant in the F.I.R. He says that even if it is believed'that the applicant made aerial firing, but no one was injured by him. Hence; in the circumstances, case requires further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and has argued that the applicant is involved in murder case and not entitled to bail. He further says that there is ample material on record to connect the applicant with the commission of offence. He placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Arshad v. The State (2006 SCMR 966). Learned D.P.-G. has supported the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and has argued that bail application be rejected. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record so also case law. Enmity between the parties is admitted. It is also admitted position that no role whatsoeveY for causing injury to any one was assigned to the present applicant: Applicant was not arrested from the place of Wardhat, but he was arrested after about one month. No material could be brought to the. notice of the Court by learned counsel for the complainant and learned D.P.-G. which connects the applicant with the commission of offence. It is settled raw that at bail stage deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be gone into, but tentative assessment is to be made just to find out as to whether applicant is connected with the commission of offence or not. In the present case, as observed above no 'role whatsoever has been assigned to the applicant. With regard to the judgment cited by learned counsel for the complainant that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while cancelling bail in the reported case has observed that accused was specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role assigned to him, but the judgment cited by learned counsel is distinguishable on facts and does not apply to the circumstances of the present case for the simple reason that no role bas been assigned to the applicant in the F.I.R. In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit' the applicant on bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum 'of Rs.200,000 (two Lacs) and execution of personal bond in' the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Bail application stands disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./I-26/K Bail granted.