2000 PLP 1604 (MLD)

M. Arif Karim for the State. M. Arif for the Complainant. RIAZ KAYANI, J.‑‑‑Muhammad Ilyas son of Muhammad Saleem and Fayyaz Ahmed son of Zafar Ullah Khan seek bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No.356 with Police Station Pasrur, District Sialkot op 18‑6‑1999 under sections 324, 337A(i), 337F(i)(vi) read with sections 148, 149 and section 302, P.P.C.

2. Allegation against the petitioners is that Ilyas armed with 222 bore rifle and Ijaz armed with Kulhari caused injuries to Waheed and Abdul Haq P.Ws. whereas the deceased was done to death by Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Khan.

3. Earlier in Criminal Miscellaneous No.303‑B of 2000 we allowed bail to Muhammad Irfan and Muhammad Afzal. Allegation against the Irfan was that he while armed with Kulhari caused injuries to Waheed and Abduul Haq P.Ws. On our scrutiny of the record, we fond that Waheed and Abdul Haq sustained 8 and 6 injuries on their persons all caused with blunt weapon. Since there was no injury caused with sharp‑edged weapon we extended the facility of bail to Muhammad Irfan and Muhammad Afzal. In the instant petition the allegation is that Ilyas armed with 222 rifle and Fayyaz armed with Kulhari caused injuries to the same P.Ws. which was not borne out from the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the Rule of Consistency fully applies to the facts of the instant case. Learned counsel for the State aided by counsel for the complainant have strenuously contended that though the role attributed to Ilyas and Fayyaz may be to cause injuries to the injured yet vacariously they are also responsible for causing injuries to the deceased as their mere presence armed with lethal weapons lends encouragement to the co‑accused to cause the death of the deceased and injuries to the P.Ws.

4. As to how far in the presence of Ilyas and Fayyaz armed with. 222 rifle and Kulhari respectively facilitates the murder of the deceased and murderous assault on the injured P.Ws. is yet to be seen at the time of recording of evidence. Presently since attribution of injuries does not fit to the medico‑legal report issued by the doctor stating that the injured had blunt weapon injuries we are of the considered view that the petitioners have made out a case of further inquiry and probe rind deserve meting not the same treatment as given to the earlier accused in Criminal Miscellaneous No.303/B of 2000 we allow their application and extend the facility of bail in their favour provided they furnish security in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trail Judge. H.B.T./M-185/L Bail granted.