1999 PLP 2016 (MLD)

S. 497/498

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

Bail, grant of

Accused was named in F.I.R. and was also involved in three other cases of murder within a span of two years which had shown aggression and desperate temperament of accused

Specific role was attributed to accused in causing injury to prosecution witness and his vicarious liability was not distinguishable from his co-accused "no caused death of deceased

Mere fact that gun used in occurrence was not recovered or that police failed to bring on record medico legal report of injured prosecution witness being circumstantial evidence, would not heavily weigh against ocular evidence which was persistent to link accused with occurrence

Reasonable grounds existed for believing that accused was guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years

Accused was not entitled to bail in circumstances. Mian Liaquat Ali for Petitioner. Mian Abdul Qayyum Anjum for the State. The Petitioner alongwith five others is involved in a case under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No. 129 of 1996 dated 13-4-1996 registered at Police Station Saddar Samundri, District Faisalabad, According to the F. I. R., the petitioner and his co-accused while armed opened the attack upon the deceased after raising lalkara that they had come to take the revenge of murder of their brother namely Mirza. Simultaneously, Jaffar fired at Mst. Sughran, wife of Atta deceased hitting her on the abdomen. The second fire with .12 bore gun was made by the petitioner upon another woman namely Mst. Sugnran wife of Saeed which hit her on left bottock Ahmad alias Ahmi, co-accused also participated in the occurrence by making fire upon the deceased.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the weapon of offence i.e. .12 bore gun has not been recovered from the petitioner nor the medico-legal report of the injured P.W. Mst. Sughran wife of Saeed is placed on record by the prosecution to link the petitioner with the occurrence. It was, therefore, submitted that it had become a case of further enquiry and the petitioner was entitled to bail. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Hanif v. State cited as 1997 MLD 2892 (Multan Bench).

3. Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the bail on the ground that there is a motive for killing the deceased Mst. Sughran Bibi whereas, causing injury to the injured P.W. aforementioned; that all the eye witnesses have clearly stated that the petitioner was present at the spot and had opened fire thereby causing injury to the injured P.W.; that the circumstantial evidence such as recovery of gun or non-availability of medico-legal report would be immaterial at this stage particularly when the eye-witnesses are persistent to name the petitioner for committing the occurrence; that the vicarious liability of the petitioner from the principal accused namely Jaffer is not distinguishable as he had gone to the spot duly armed in pursuance of a common motive of all the assailants; and lastly, it was urged that the petitioner is involved in three murder cases registered against him vide F.I.R. No.377 dated 13-8-1995, F.I.R. No.161 dated 4-5-1996 and F.I.R. No.410 dated 26-9-1996. all registered at Police Station Saddar Samundri, and as such being of desperate and criminal nature, should not be allowed bail at the risk of repetition of another offence of similar nature. Finally, the petitioner has allegedly been found guilty and challan has already been submitted to the Court.

4. I have considered the foregoing contentions and find that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. He is also involved in three other cases of murder within the span of two years which shows his aggressive and desperate temperament. A specific role is attributed to him in causing injury to the injured P.W. Mst. Sughran. His vicarious liability is not distinguishable from his co-accused Jaffer who caused death of the deceased while firing at her as he was present at the spot alongwith other accused duly armed with . 12 bore gun. The mere fact that the gun was not recovered or that the police failed to bring on record the medico-legal report of the injured P.W. being circumstantial evidence would not heavily weigh against the ocular evidence which is persistent to link the petition with the occurrence.

5. In the situation, it can be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years. He has, therefore, no case for bail at this stage. The petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M-910/L Petition dismissed.