1999MLD212 (PLP)

The learned counsel argues that the allegations in F.I.R. were that the accused Haji Misri, Sarwar and the applicant fired from their guns and it is difficult to say as to whose fire-arm shots hit the injured, which could only be determined at trial after evidence is recorded. He argues that the alleged intention to kill is also yet to be determined a trial as such, case of the applicant requires further enquiry and he is entitled to bail. As stated above, the learned counsel for the State has raised no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant, even District Attorney had also raised no objection to grant of bail to the applicant before the trial Court. The learned counsel for the applicant in support of bail plea has relied upon the decisions reported as: 1982 SCMR page 955, 1997 SCMR page 251, 1976 SC MR page 168, 1994 PCr.LJ 2285, 1996 PCr.LJ 1650, 1984 PCr.LJ 436 and 1989 PCr.LJ page 1783. I have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the F.I.R. and the order dated 17-11-1997 of the learned Sessions Judge, Dadu rejecting the Bail application. I have also perused police papers. A bare perusal of F.I.R. shows that the parties are already at daggers drawn. Enmity between them is admitted in the F.I.R. It is the case of prosecution that the applicant Sikandar, Haji Misri and Sarwar co-accused were armed with guns and they fired at the Car, which resulted in the injuries to the person of Jawed and Rustam. It is not specifically alleged in the F.I.R. as to who caused specific injuries to both of the injured. The Police has found three accused including the accused Haji Misri and Sarwar who allegedly fired at the A Car innocent and they have been let if by the Police. If the complainant party can involve the accused let of by the Police falsely as such possibility of false involvement of the applicant also cannot be ruled out. If the allegations as contained in the F.I.R. that the applicant and his two brothers Sarwar and Haji Misri fired at the Car resulting injuries to Jawed and Rustam are correct, then it is difficult to say at this stage as to whose shots actually caused the injuries to both of the injured when two accused against whom similar allegations were made have been let of Application of section 324, P.P.C., is also requires to be determined at the trial. In the case of Amjad and another v. State reported in 1982 SCMR page 955, Honourable Supreme Court granted bail on the version given in the F.I.R, found to be false with regard to majority of the accused as is the present case. In 1997 SCMR page 251, Honourable Supreme Court granted bail on the ground that both the accused fired simultaneously and it was difficult to say as to whose shot killed the deceased. In 1989 PCr.LJ page 1783 (Bashir Ahmed and others v. State) Lahore High Court granted bail on the ground that no specific injury was attributed to the accused and it was not known as to whose injury caused death of the deceased. Similar view was expressed in the case of Ghulam Haider and another v. State reported in NLR 1982 Criminal page-693 by this Court and bail was granted on the ground that as to who was responsible for causing fatal injury to deceased requiring further enquiry. In the case of Chaudhry Muhammad Anwar Samma v. State, reported in 1976 SCMR page 168 it was held by the Supreme Court that the medical report not disclosing any injury likely to result in death or so clinically dangerous as to likely to cause death, as such bail was granted. In 1996 PCr.LJ 1650 Muhammad Aslam v. State bail was granted by High Court Lahore that the case may fall under section 337-F(i), P.P.C. and application of section 324, P.P.C. in the case may, require further enquiry. In Zulfiqar v. State, reported in 1994 PCr.LJ page 2285, it was held by Pehsawar High Court that accused's intention to kill was yet to be determined at the trial, as such, bail was granted. Considering all the aspects of the case, F.I.R. Police report under section 169, Cr.P.C. and the case law discussed above and the no objection of the learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State, I am of the view that the case of the applicant requires probe into the guilt of the applicant and his actual involvement in the commission of the alleged offence, as such, the applicant is entitled to bail under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. 1, therefore, allowed Bail Application No.216 of 1997 and ordered that the applicant be released on bail provided he furnishes one solvent surety in the sum of 8.1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court, by my short order dated 8-1-1997. The above are the reasons of my short order. The above assessment is of tentative nature and the trial Court is not to be influenced in any manner. The trial Court will be free to form its own independent finding on the conclusion of trial. H.B.T./S-130/K Bail granted.