1999 P Cr (PLP)

When the gunman Muhammad Ayoob returned the fire, the assailants sped away in the Blue Corolla. Shah Rukh aged 5 years died on the spot as the result of having hit by a bullet on his head, while Muhammad Ayoob Awan received bullet wounds on left shoulder, hand, and neck. Mst. Maimoona Ayoob received injuries on her shoulder, leg and neck. Malik Gulzar, the gunman was also hit on leg and neck. Muhammad Ayoob Awan told the Police that the accused persons named in the F. I. R. had committed the crime on account of old political rivalry. The informant/injured Muhammad Ayoob was rushed to Agha Khan Hospital and he as well as other injured persons survived. The Police recorded the statement of the informant at the hospital which was subsequently transcribed in 154, Cr.P.C. book. The Police arrested the three applicants while the remaining two accused are absconding." The learned counsel for the applicants mainly raised the following grounds for releasing the applicants on bail. (1) That the F.I.R. was delayed. The time of recording of statement of the injured witness Muhammad Ayoob Awan at the hospital is shown as 8-30 a.m. while its transcription in 154, Cr.P.C. book is shown at 10-10 hours. Apparently, in wake of such an attack on the informants' car, wherein his school going nephew was killed, while he himself alongwith other occupants of the vehicle received multiple bullet wounds, the F.I.R. has been conveyed to~ police without any loss of time: Delay in transcribing the report in F.I.R. book by the police cannot be considered material as the F.I.R. under the circumstances is the statement of Muhammad Ayoob Awan recorded by Muhammad Irshad of Police Station Ferozabad, at Agha Khan Hospital at 8-30 hours. That statement is recorded at the earliest possible time, therefore, it attaches with itself the possibility that in such a short time, the mind of the informant may not have had the opportunity of conceiving concoction. (2) The second ground urged was that specific part is not assigned to each accused in detail, as to which accused used what weapon, and caused which injury. This ground under the circumstances, for the purpose of consideration of bail application, is of no substance. All the assailants are alleged to have come in a single vehicle, duly armed, and all are said to have fired at their victims. One casualty has occurred while 3 witnesses have been injured. Therefore, common intention on part of all the accused is ex facie present. (3) The third ground raised by the learned counsel was that on account of background of enmity which is admitted in the F.I.R. and non-presence of uninterested witnesses the case required further enquiry. We have considered this contention of the learned counsel dispassionately and we are of tile view that the enmity in the present case has in fact provided a motive for the commission of the present crime. The enmity is treated like a double-edged weapon cutting both ways. This cannot provide a ground for grant of bail to the applicants. The presence of the witnesss who are injured by the firing cannot be brushed aside although they are related inter se and to the complainant. The wreckless act on the part of the assailants has resulted in death of an innocent school going child and resulted in life long trauma for the injured witnesses who survived on account of nothing short of divine help. Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the case reported in 1992 PCr.LJ 2246 in which case a Single Bench of the Lahore High Court had granted bail on the ground that no overt act had been attributed to the accused in that case and their vicarious liability was to be determined by the Trial Court after recording of evidence. We find that the circumstances of the above case are quite distinct and different from the present case. Similarly, in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicants in support of his above ground:-- (1) 1996 MLD 1038 and (2) PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K)

8. We find that the circumstances of the present cases are distinct and peculiar, therefore, none of the precedents cited by the learned counsel for the applicants, help the applicants. . Under all the above circumstances, we had rejected this bail application by our short order on 8-9-1998. These are the detailed reasons for the same. N.H.Q./S-182/K Bail refused.