2002 P Cr (PLP)

Mirza Nadeem Asif for the State. This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1349‑B of 2000/BWP and Criminal Miscellaneous No.84‑B of 2001/BWP as both bail applications arise out of the same F.I.R.

2. Iftikhar Ahmad and 13 others in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1349‑B of 2000 and Ghulam Rasheed and four others in Criminal Miscellaneous No.84‑B of 2001 seek post‑arrest bail in case bearing F. I. R. No. 162 of 2000 registered at Police Station Saddar, Bahawalnagar under sections 302/324/148/149/337/430/380/114, P.P.C. in which all the petitioners are nominated.

3. The occurrence took place at 4‑15 p.m. on 17‑7‑2000. The F.I.R. was promptly lodged at 6‑00 p.m. on the same day. The allegations against the petitioners are that they alongwith their co accused armed with deadly weapons, in pursuance of a common objective committed Qatl‑i‑Amd of the son of the complainant and also caused injuries to as many as 9 P.Ws.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this was a case of cross‑version; that the accused party also received injuries at the hands of the complainant party; that most of the injuries attributed to the accused party are not supported by the Medico‑legal Report; that it is not a case of vicarious liability and in the present case, the individual role of every petitioner/accused can be looked into at the bail stage; that no injury was caused to the deceased which could be attributed to the petitioners;, that the injuries declared are simple in nature and that from the facts and circumstances of the case, the case was of one of further inquiry. Further corroborating the above, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that Ghulam Rasheed, Ghulam Majeed, Muhammad Ashraf, Mazhar Iqbal and Ghulam Rasool in Criminal Miscellaneous No.84‑B of 2001/BWP were attributed specific roles but no corresponding injury to any injured or to the deceased was made out against them in the F.I.R. He further stated that apart from these petitioners and Muhammad Ilyas petitioner No.6 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1349‑B of 2000/BWP,, all other petitioners have been alleged to be armed with Sotas and to specific injury to the persons injured has been attributed to the said petitioners. Learned counsel relied upon the case of Abdul Sattar v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 971 to contend that where a large number of persons were involved, it was a case of further inquiry. He further relied upon the case of Muhammad Irfan etc. v. The State 2000 MLD 1616 to submit that bail should be granted where no specific injury is attributed to the accused.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the State strongly resisted the bail applications. It was strongly pointed out that all the accused have been specifically named in a promptly lodged F.I.R. in which each of the petitioners has been alleged to be carrying a specific deadly weapon and against whom specific roles have been attributed. As a result of the unlawful assembly and the premeditated attack by the accused party, the son of the complainant was killed while at least 9 P.Ws. sustained injuries. It is also contended that a large number of empties were found at the spot. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous No.84‑B of 2001/BWP had earlier filed an application for bail (Criminal Miscellaneous No.1218‑B of 2000/BWP) which was withdrawn on 13‑12‑2000. No fresh ground existed for moving the fresh bail application and that the bail application cannot be repeated in the present circumstances. It was also urged that as many as three investigations have been carried out and in all the investigations, the accused have been prima facie found guilty. It was finally submitted that the alleged offence against the petitioners fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. .C.; hence they are not entitled to be released on bail.

6. Arguments hard. Record perused.

7. The petitioners in both these bail applications are involved in a promptly lodged F.I.R. and specific roles have been attributed to each of the petitioner. The accused nominated in the F.I.R. including the petitioners were armed with deadly weapons and took part in the occurrence in which one person was murdered and 9 P.Ws. were injure by the petitioners/accused. Three Investigating Officers have investigated the case and in all the investigations, the petitioners have been found involved in the offence. The case also falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

8. In the light of the above, no ground is made out for the grant of post‑arrest bail to any of the petitioners. Both these bail applications are hereby rejected.

9. At this stage, it has been pointed out that the challan was put up before the trial Court on 31‑8‑2000 but the trial has not ,so far It is interest of justice that the learned trial Court forthwith and conclude it within four months Both the learned counsel for the parties have that the trial is concluded within the prescribed period. Q.M.H./M.A.K/I-103/L Bail refused.