2008 PLP 646 (MLD)

MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.

Learned counsel submits that applicant has been involved falsely in this case. He submits that according to complainant 26 named persons participated in the crime but after investigation police did not agree with the versions and has shown Mahboob Ali, Liaqat son of Ghulam Hyder Akbar, Abdul Jabbar and Iqbal in Column No.2. He submits that Mehmood has allegedly fired with K.K. Rifle on Sabal, brother of the complainant and caused his death but even then name of Mehmood is placed in Column No.2. He submits that some other persons, to whom, toto has been assigned are being let off by showing their names in Column No.2. He submits that applicant has allegedly fired in the air with no allegation of causing injury or any looting etc. hence his case at the most can be of ineffective firing hence he may be admitted to bail. He has relied upon 2006 YLR 2497 and on unreported order passed in Criminal Bail Application No.3874 of 2006 (Ahmed v. The State). On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State Counsel submits that name of the applicant is mentioned in the F.I.R. and he has participated in crime. However, he has not disputed that five persons named by complainant have been placed in Column No.2. After hearing the learned counsel first thing which came to mind is that the version of the complainant cannot be taken in toto. He has named 26 persons with very specific roles but after investigation police has differed from the versions of the complainant and has named five persons in Column No.2. This situation creates a doubt to some extent in the involvement of each and every persons vis-a-vis then toto participation in the crime well as the intention. Of course, Mahboob has been alleged in firing with K.K. upon the brother of complainant who died due to injury but he has been named in Column No.2 with four other named persons. There is no specific role attributed to the applicant and he is alleged for firing in the air while the other accused were leaving after committing the crime on the case of the accused can be of ineffective firing whereas his guilt in respect to his participation in the alleged crime as well as severity of his act is to be determined after the further enquiry. In the circumstances applicant is enlarged to bail in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. H.B.T./W-8/K Bail granted.