1986 PLP 1795 (MLD)

‑‑‑5:498‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.147,148, 149 & 302‑‑Bail‑‑Accused and co‑accused directly involved in death of deceased by shooting him with fire‑arms‑‑First shot of fire‑arm which hit deceased attributed to :co‑accused and other injuries to accused from whom no crime weapon vas recovered‑‑Counter‑case filed and one of persons from accused side allegedly sustained injuries‑‑Counsel for State conceding to grant of bail‑Bail allowed to accused in circumstances. Jawed Haider Kazmi for Applicant. A.A. Muhammad Ally A.A.‑G. for the State. The applicant Bashir Ahmed is one of the nine (9) accused in Crime No.207185 registered at P.S. Jamshed Quarters on 12‑10‑1985 at about 8‑00 p.m. on a report lodged by Shabbir Ahmed son of Muhammad Zaman alleging that they. had made armed attack on him and his brother Manzoar Ahmed and three of them named as Siddique. Ahmed, Bashir Ahmed and Riaz‑Ahmed had shot Manzoor Ahmed from their respective arms and the victim had succumbed to the injuries so caused to him, The crime was registered in respect of commission of offence, punishable under section 147, 148 and 302 read with section 149, P.P.C. Six persons out of the nine persons named in the F.I.R as the accused have been released on bail by different orders made in Criminal Bail Applications Nos.1420/85, 1473/85, 44/86, and 74/86. The present applicant Bashir Ahmed and the two accused Siddique Ahmed and Riaz Ahmed are still in jail. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged at the outset that there are counter‑cases between the parties and one of the accused namely Abdur Rasheed was actually shot at and he has cited several cases where bail was granted to the accused in counter‑cases. He has also urged that the medical evidence reveals that the deceased Manzoor Ahmed had sustained three fire‑arm injuries out of which two were entry wounds and one was exit wound and there is no clear evidence as to whose shots had hit the deceased and who was responsible for causing the fatal injuries. He has also urged that counter‑report was lodged and it was prior in time to that filed in the case against the applicant and others. According to him, no crime weapon is alleged to have been recovered from the present applicant. He has advanced the arguments that the case against the present applicant needs further enquiry for establishing his complicity in commission of the crime. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has not opposed the application stating that as many as nine persons stand involved in commission of the crime whereas the deceased had sustained three fire‑arm injuries, out of which two were entry wounds and one was exit wound and the fatal shot blow has been attributed to co accused Siddique Ahmed. He has also stated that there is no mention in the F.I.R. of this case of the incident described in the counter‑report and the injuries sustained by the, accused Rasheed Ahmed. The present applicant Bashir Ahmed and the co‑accused Siddique Ahmed and Riaz Ahmed are directly involved in causing death of the deceased by shooting him from fire‑arms. The first fire‑arm having hit the deceased is attributed to the co‑accused Siddique Ahmed and it is alleged that shot had hit the deceased. The other injury is obviously attributable to present applicant Bashir Ahmed or accused Riaz Ahmed. A No crime weapon is alleged to have been recovered from the present applicant. A counter‑case has been filed and one of the persons from the accused side is alleged to have sustained fire‑arm injuries. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has conceded to "he grant of bail. In the circumstances, bail is granted to the applicant in the sum of Rs.25,000 with one'surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court.' M.Y.H. Bali granted.