1989 PLP 4187 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 19th July, 1989. The petitioner, who is involved in a case under section 302/ 148/149 P.P.C. arising out of FIR No. 142 dated 17‑4‑1989 registered at Police Station Sadar Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din, seeks to be released on bail.

2. According to the FIR, Khadam Hussain armed with pistol, Qurban armed with rifle 7 MM, Nasir Abbas armed with pistol, Mushtaq Hussain armed with pistol and Ilyas armed with Danda made their way into the hostel room where the deceased and the PWs were present; fire‑arm injuries were caused to Imtiaz by Khadam, Nasir Abbas, Mustaq Hussain, whereas Ansar PW was allegedly given Danda blows by Ilyas on his‑head and ankle.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner is named in the FIR which was promptly lodged but only ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no direct motive with the petitioner and the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased or to the injured PWs, hence his case falls within the scope of further inquiry.

4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this bail application and contended that the petitioner is named as an accused person in the FIR, though he has not caused any injury to any person but was armed with revolver at the time of occurrence and he also opened fire which did not hit anybody.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record brought by the police, I rind that there is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's case is of further inquiry and the case‑law relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant i.e. Rashid Khan and another v. The State 1986 SCMR 933, Muhammad Rashid v. The State 1979 SCMR 92 and Nazar Muhammad v. The State (PLD 1978 SC 236), in fact supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant has also placed reliance on Baboo v. The State (1981 SCMR 849) which is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. Without going deep into the merits and demerits of the case, I find at this stage only the evidence available against the petitioner is the FIR and the statement of inured PW Azhar Mahmood which is to the effect that the petitioner raised Lalkara.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the petitioner is the main cause of the dispute because he being expelled student used to come in the college to instigate the students and he has been involved in a case under section 342 P.P.C. vide FIR No. 21/88 dated 2‑2‑1988 and also in another case vide FIR No. 2 dated 13‑5‑1989 under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance

7. I have perused the record brought by the police and have considered they submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and find that there is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case is o further inquiry, because the petitioner has not caused any injury to the injured E PWs or the deceased. At this stage it cannot be said with certainty that actually the petitioner was involved in the present case. Hence, his case falls within the ambit of further inquiry.

8. In view of this situation, I admit t e petitioner to bail, provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs. 50.000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner,/Dupty Magistrate. Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din. SA./A‑690/L