2013 PLP 1416 (YLR)

HABIB-UR-REHMAN SHAIKH, J.

The applicants Ramzan and Hamzo Khan, both by caste Magsi, have filed present bail application after rejection of the bail from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadkot. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25-5-2012, complainant Hussain Bux Magsi lodged F.I.R at P.S A/Section, Shahdadkot, stating therein that party of Liaquat Ali Magsi had levelled allegation of `Karap' against his cousin Shabir Hussain Magsi and had issued threats. It was alleged in the F.I.R that on 25-5-2012, at 8-30 a.m., complainant along with his cousins Muhammad Soomar, Atibar and Bashir, after taking tea, were sitting at the hotel of Naimatullah Pathan, when accused persons (1) Liaquat Magsi, (2) Imam Bux Magsi, (3) Ramzan Magsi, all three armed with pistols, (4) Ghulam Abbas Magsi, empty-handed, (5) Abdul Karim with pistol, (6) Hamzo Khan Magsi with pistol, emerged there and on the instigation of accused Ghulam Abbas, accused Liaquat fired at Muhammad Soomar, which hit him and he raising cry fell down on the bench, where after the accused persons making fires with pistols made their escape good. The complainant being empty-handed did not chase the accused persons and Muhammad Soomar was found to have expired. Subsequently, the complainant went to police station and lodged F.I.R. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the specific role has been assigned by the complainant against accused Liaquat Ali and general allegation is levelled against the present applicant and no any specific injury sustained by the deceased from the hands of present applicants was alleged in the F.I.R. He further contended that in fact neither the applicants have participated in the alleged incident, nor they were present at the alleged time of incident. He further contended that the matter requires further enquiry. Even otherwise, the allegation mentioned in the F.I.R against the present applicants is of ineffective firing, which also requires further enquiry. He, therefore, prays for grant of bail. He has relied upon the cases of Muhammad Haroon v. The State, 1994 SCMR 2161, Abdur Rehman v. Tanveer Hussain, 1995 SCMR 1118, Muhammad Sadiq v. The State, 1996 SCMR 1654, Muhammad v. The State 1998 SCMP 454, Attaullah v. The State 1999 SCMR 1320 and Moula Dad v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1069. On the other hand, learned State Counsel contended that the names of the present applicants transpire in the F.I.R with their respective weapon and the complainant has identified the accused. Offence is daytime and the applicants facilitated and shared the common intention with the main accused Liaquat. So he opposed the grant of bail to the applicants. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned State Counsel and perused the record. As per alleged F.I.R specific role has been assigned to co-accused Liaquat Ali, who directly fired upon the deceased and the contents of the F.I.R clearly show that remaining accused have fired in air or upon the complainant, which is not clear. Only the names of the applicants appear in the F.I.R without any specific role. Even though if considering the contents of the F.I.R., the allegation against the present applicants is only of ineffective firing. In the case of Muhammad (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while allowing bail to the accused in the similar and identical circumstances held that accused had allegedly made an ineffective firing and no injury was attributed to him during the occurrence. Case against accused, therefore, needed further inquiry. In Mouladad's case (supra) also, bail was allowed by a Single Bench of Balochistan High Court at Quetta by holding that accused had allegedly made aerial and ineffective firing without aiming his pistol towards the deceased who was only one or two paces away from him. It was further held that vicarious liability of the accused for the commission of the offence of murder was yet to be determined. In the case of Muhammad Sadiq (supra), bail was granted by holding that although accused were armed with a pistol and a rifle, yet they did not cause any injury to the complainant party. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case the case against the applicants requires further enquiry and they have made out the case for grant of bail. Consequently, bail is granted to the and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The bail application stands disposed of along with listed applicants. MWA/R-26/K Bail granted.