1992 P Cr (PLP)

2. The petitioner who is the son of Rafique deceased and is the complainant of the said case seeks cancellation of the bail allowed to the said respondents through an order, dated 13‑5‑1991 passed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gujrat.

3. The occurrence in question had taken place at about 4‑30 a.m. and it had been alleged by the complainant that Ismail, Jamil, Khalid and Ramzan respondents who were armed with guns came to the cattle shed where Rafique deceased was asleep while Nathu and Ismail sons of Fateh Muhammad also armed with guns climbed on to the roof of the said cattle shed and on a call given by Kaka accused, who is the father of Khalil and Ramzan accused abovementioned, to do Muhammad deceased to death, Ismail son of Sharf Din fired a shot at Rafique deceased which was followed by shots fired by Jamil, Khalil and Ramzan which shots had proved fatal.

4. The learned counsel for the accused‑respondents submits that all the accused‑respondents had been found innocent by the local police as also by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Phalia who had investigated this case.

5. Adds that no crime empty had been recovered from the spot nor had any weapon had been recovered from the possession of or at the instance of any of the respondents.

6. Submits that it is not readily believable that the complainant would have recognized Kaka respondent who was standing outside the house of the complainant only by his noise.

7. Contends that no part is attributed to Nathu and Ismail sons of Fateh Muhammad in causing the death of Rafique deceased.

8. In respect of the other four respondents, the learned counsel argues that it could not have been possible for the complainant to have identified the assailants who had admittedly fired the shots from a sufficiently long distance.

9. Further argues that the respondents have been falsely implicated merely on account of enmity which exists between the parties as Ashraf, complainant‑petitioner, stands accused of the murder of the father of Ismail respondent No.1 and is facing the said trial even at present.

10. Also submits that besides the testimony of the inimical witnesses, no other evidence is available with the prosecution to connect the said respondents with the commission of the offence in question or to corroborate the interested testimony of the alleged eye‑witnesses.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, replies that the respondents are specifically named in the F.I.R. with specific roles attributed to them and claims that in the circumstances the said respondents were not entitled to be admitted to bail. Reliance has been placed on 1990 S C M R 1319, 1990 S C M R 579, 1990 S C M R 315, 1989 S C M R 899, 1988 S C M R 281 and 1988 S C M R 1145.

12. Suffice it to say that having heard the parties, I do not feel persuaded to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

13. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.?????? H.B.T./M‑3108/L ??????????? Petition dismissed.