2002 SCMR 129 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Bail‑‑‑Accused was alleged to have fired at the eye‑witnesses and caused them injuries‑‑‑Doctor who had examined the said eye‑witnesses, had found fire‑arm injuries on their bodies‑‑‑Case of accused was not at par with that of co‑accused already released on bail‑‑‑Impugned order was based on cogent reasons and sound principles of law and was not open to any exception‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused to accused by Supreme Court and bail was declined to him in circumstances. Q.M. Salim, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Muhammad Taqi Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Caveator. Date of hearing: 6th July, 2000. RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.‑‑‑Facts leading to the filing of this petition are that the petitioner alongwith 5 others, was reported against for the murder of one Waris Ali and murderous assault on 4 eye‑witnesses. Allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with .12 bore gun and fired at P.Ws. Riasat and Ilyas causing them injuries. The petitioner applied for bail before Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala which was granted, however, on a criminal miscellaneous filed before the High Court, his bail was cancelled giving rise to the present petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that another co‑accused of the petitioner, Muhammad Hanif, who was allegedly armed with 7 mm rifle was allowed bail and case of the petitioner is at par with that of co accused Muhammad Hanif. He further submits that prosecution case absolutely fails because the allegation levelled against the co‑accused of the petitioner, Muhammad Hanif, that he fired with 7 mm rifle was found to be false and injuries on the person of Waris Ali deceased, were caused with sharp‑edged weapon. We have heard both the sides and gone through the file.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he fired at the eye‑witnesses causing them injuries. The doctor, who examined the injured, found fire‑arm injuries on the person of eye‑witnesses. In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner is not at par with that of his co‑accused Muhammad Hanif who was allowed bail earlier.

4. After having perused the order impugned we find cogent reasons have been given which are based on sound principles of law. No exception to the order of High Court can be taken. This petition fails and is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./I‑36/S Leave refused.