2003 P Cr (PLP)

Allah Bachayo Baloch for Applicants. Ali Azhar Tunio, Asstt. A.‑G. Bail has been sought by the applicants who are facing trial in Crime No. 26 of 2000 under section 302, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance read with sections 34 and 504, P.P.C. of Police Station Sehwan, inter alia, on the ground that it is a case of no evidence, no specific role has been assigned to the applicants and apparent enmity and further that the deceased had a criminal record. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General, has opposed bail on the ground that the incident was occurred on 29‑3‑2000 and reported within one hour, applicants were named in the F.I.R. with specific description of the ammunition they were holding and further that the said person had been duly implicated under section 161, Cr.P.C. by the witnesses. The recovery has been effected and they have been recently challaned in the case. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. From the F.I.R. it appears that all the accused persons are specifically mentioned with the weapons holding by them respectively. They were seen by the complainant and other witnesses duly armed with after they rushed to the place of incident inside the Dargah where brother of the complainant Dilawar was found dead on account of the fire‑arm and hatchet injuries on his person. From the F.I.R. it also appears that there was old enmity between the parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that on account of enmity the applicants have been implicated cannot be ruled out. Indeed, enmity is a double‑edged weapon which cuts both the way and this can very well be a motive for the applicants for committing the crime. As such fact can only be determined at the trial. Since the recovery has been effected from the applicants ant even the medical report shows that the deceased Dilawar had received fire‑arm injury and hatchet injuries on his person, it cannot be said at this stage that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular evidence, as was suggested by the learned counsel for the applicants. Besides the implication of the applicants in section 161, Cr.P.C. statements by the witnesses. Since it is a recent case and no evidence has been recorded, I do not feel inclined to form a different opinion than what has been expressed by the learned. Sessions Judge, while rejecting the bail application. Resultantly this application is also declined. H.B.T./H‑79/K Application dismissed.