1994 PLP 1680 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Three petitioners accused of offences under sections 302, 324, 34 and 109, P.P.C. seek leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 19‑7‑1993.

2. The two grounds taken up for bail in the High Court were as hereunder:‑ "In support of this bail application, the learned counsel urged that as far as petitioners Muhammad Arshad and Faraqat Ali are concerned, the firing by them was ineffective inasmuch as they aimed at the complainant and not the victim of attack. It was, also argued that the petitioners were also declared innocent." This plea did not prevail in the High Court for the reasons noted hereunder:‑ "Mere omission on the part of the complainant to mention that the deceased was also injured by bullet in such an attack which had the element of surprise is nothing but natural. It is not strange or odd that one would really omit to mention precise role attributed to the assailants. Hence I would hold that all the three petitioners had participated in the attack and not only directly but they are also vicariously liable for the commission of offence. Number, of investigations were carried out and it was conclusively found that all the petitioners were guilty. Not only all the petitioners participated the attack but also raised Lalkaras which shows that they were acting in furtherance of their common intention."

3. When the matter was taken up in chamber, a learned Judge of this Court admitted two of the petitioners to bail on 28‑7‑1993 by an order as hereunder:‑ "Heard Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that according to the F.I.R.. only ineffective firing on the complainant was attributed to the petitioners, they are not alleged to have aimed at the deceased, there is a conflict in the ocular and medical account and Faraqat petitioner was found innocent by the local police. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer but he is not in a position to controvert the above submissions. The petitioners namely Muhammad Arshad and Faraqat Ali are admitted to interim bail till the disposal of the petition for leave to appeal subject to their furnishing security in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Sargodha.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find that for the purposes of bail at this stage there is nothing to detract from the order already passed by the learned Judge in chambers., We. Therefore, convert this petition into an appeal to the extent of petitioners Nos 2 and 3. (Muhammad Arshad and Faraaqat Ali alias Bhola), set aside the order of the High Court in respect of these two petitioners and confirm the interim bail already granted to these two. As regards petitioner No! 1 (Shafaqat alias Gunga), no case is made out for his admission to bail. Hence he is refused bail and leave to appeal. N.H.Q./S‑859/S Order accordingly,