1989 PLP 248 (SCMR)

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 307, 148 & 149‑‑West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1905), S. 13‑D‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Contentions of accused that attempt had been made to rope in his entire family but he. was unable to point out relationship of accused inter se‑‑Accused further stated that High Court had found that injuries sustained by deceased could not be result of one or two fires and in that while making reference to number of injuries surgical wounds were also taken into consideration and that observations of High Court in appreciating number of injuries were not correct‑‑Said factor alone was not the basis for rejecting bail application of accused‑‑Overall features of case were considered by High Court and order of High Court rejecting bail application was unexceptionable‑‑Petition dismissed. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.I.Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Abdul Ghafoor Nangi, Asstt. A.‑G. Sind for the State. Date of hearing: 29th February, 1988. S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioners applied for bail to the High Court in a case under sections 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. and section 13‑D of the Arms Ordinance. Their earlier application for the grant of bail was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 28‑7‑1987.

2. The occurrence in the case had taken place on 18‑5‑1987 at sunrise time and the report was lodged by Mashooq Ali on the same date at Police Station Shahdarkot, situate at a distance of 8 miles from the place of occurrence. The complaint mentioned the names of all the seven petitioners and the other two co -accused (who have not applied for bail) namely More and Rab Nawaz. The F.I.R. also mentions that the petitioners were armed variously with firearms namely either guns or rifles. One Laldino, cousin of Mashooq Ali complainant was killed as a result of firing in the occurrence. Besides reiterating all that was urged before the High Court, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from the number of persons involved in the case, it appears that an attempt was made to rope in the entire family. The learned counsel was unable to point out the relationship of the petitioners inter se and hence prima facie the contention has no force. It was next contended that the learned High Court had found that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be the result of one or two fires and in B that while making reference to the number of injuries the surgical wounds were also taken into consideration. The observations of the learned High Court in appreciating the number of injuries, therefore, are not correct. But this factor alone was not the basis for rejecting the application for bail. The overall features of the case were considered by the learned High Court and in the circumstances the order passed in the case is unexceptionable. The petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly. M.Y.H./S‑206/S ‑‑ Petition dismissed.