1994 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/324/148/149

Bail, grant of-- Klashnikov allegedly used by accused at the time of occurrence had not been recovered from him though certain Klashnikov empties were seized from the spot

Accused was not alleged to have caused injuries to any member of the complainant party--Accused was in jail for the last eleven months and the trial had not yet concluded

Accused was allowed bail in circumstances. Syed Baqir Ali Naqvi and Syed Najam Abbas for Petitioners. Ghazanfar Ijaz for the State. This is a petition for grant of bail to Nazar Hussain and Zafar Mahmood Shah, petitioners, who stand arrested on the charge of double murder and murderous assault on P.Ws. namely Imran, Ghulam Shabbir and Mirza Khushi Muhammad, P.Ws., committed on 23-1-1993 in Alipur City, District Muzaffargarh. The instant case (F.I.R. No.12/93, dated 23-1-1993, under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C.) was lodged by Sher Muhammad, the same day at Police Station City Alipur, District Muzaffargarh, alleging that he alongwith his son Muhammad Yousaf were sitting in the Bazar at the relevant time on the shop of a juice-seller when .the nine accused including the petitioners armed with fire-arms came there in a wagon and coming out of it started spraying bullets from their respective weapons. Yousaf was fired at and killed by Wasim while Nazir Ali (deceased) was killed with firing made by Shahbaz and Akhtar while Munir caused injuries to Imran, Ghulam Shabbir and Mirza Khushi Muhammad P.Ws. Allegation against the eetitioners is that Nazar Hussain armed with .32 bore rifle and Zafar Shah with Klashnikov in order to create terror fired indiscriminately on all sides of the Chowk where the occurrence took place. Nazar Abbas and Malik War, co-accused of the petitioners allegedly received bullet injuries at the hands of their own companions and fell on the spot while Akhtar, their another companion was rounded up by Muhammad Akbar and Toheed Ahmad, P.Ws. It appears that Nazar Abbas and Malik War, injured accused, were removed to the hospital and were later on arrested from there. The petitioners' bail plea was declined by the lower Court, hence this petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact Nazar Abbas and Malik War, the two injured accused, were attacked by the complainant party and they had suffered injuries during the exchange of firing made at each other. He further stated that Zafar Mahmood, petitioner, has been falsely named in this case due to party faction. Lastly it is contended that nobody is stated to have been injured by alleged firing made by the petitioners, therefore, they are entitled to grant of bail. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State has opposed the petition.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that learned counsel for the petitioners on his own showing has admitted exchange of firing and also that Nazar Abbas received injuries during the occurrence which establishes his presence. Furthermore, he allegedly used .222 rifle during the occurrence and as many as 22 empties of .222 rifle were seized from the spot which prima facie connect him with the crime. Consequently, Nazar Abbas, petitioner, is not entitled to grant of bail. This petition, to his extent, is dismissed.

4. So far as Zafar Mahmood Shah, petitioner, is concerned, his case stands on different footing. He (petitioner) is stated to have used Klashnikov at the time of occurrence but no such weapon has been recovered from him though certain empties of Klashnikov cartridges were seized from the spot. There is no allegation that he caused injuries to any person of the complainant party either. He is in jail for the last 11 months and the trial has not yet concluded. In the circumstances I feel that he is entitled to grant of bail. This petition, to his extent, is allowed. It is directed that War Mahmood Shah, petitioner, shall be released subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, during the pendency of trial. N.H.Q./N-183/L Order accordingly.