2005 P Cr (PLP)

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 3‑4‑2004 at about 8‑15 a.m. Munir, Latif, Arif, Aslam, Khalid, Shaukat Ali, Asghar Ali, Jehangir, Liaqat and Mansha, while armed with lethal weapons, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them, have fired at the complainant and the door of his drawing room and the same hit the wall.

3. The motive behind the occurrence is that about six years ago, the brother of accused Khalid, Aslam and others had been murdered and in the same complainant Muhammad Mansha and his brother were involved, the accused in order to avenge the same have committed the above act.

4. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that they have falsely been roped in; that there is three days delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that it is a case of ineffective firing; that the story of the complainant as contained in the F.I.R. is not believable on the face of it as 10 persons armed with lethal weapons had fired at the complainant and also at the door of his house's drawing room but nobody had received a scratch even and it suggests that such story is based upon the mere concoction; that six out of ten nominated accused, who allegedly had participated in the occurrence, had been declared innocent and the benefit of such finding is also extendable to them; that they are behind the bars since 16‑5‑2004 and so far their trial has not commenced even; and they are previous non‑convicts. In support of the bail plea reliance has been placed upon the cases of Muhammad Saleem v. The State PLD 1989 Lah. 233, Ghulam Murtaza v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1691 (Karachi), Illahi Bux v. The State 2003 MLD 1044 (Karachi) and Mehrab v. The State 2004 MLD 631 (Karachi).

5. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R.; that they while armed with lethal weapons have formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the same had fired at the complainant and he but luckily was saved and not only this but they had also fired at the door of his drawing room and this heavily suggests that they in all cases had intended to kill him; that there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. as the application for registration of case was made on the day of occurrence; that 11 empties had been recovered from the spot; that they in the investigation were found to be involved in the matter; that the finding of innocence in favour of some of the accused cannot be resolved in their favour; that it is a case of highhandedness; that they are group of desperate persons; that the challan against them stands submitted in the Court and it is very much likely that their trial may commence shortly; and that on the basis of the material available on the record, they are prima facie connected with the alleged offence and so the learned trial Court may be directed to expeditiously conclude the trial.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the parties and available record perused.

7. No doubt the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. with the role that they while armed with lethal weapons had resorted to firing at the complainant and his house on the above said date and time but the fact also remains that no person had been injured due to the same. This fact heavily recoils on the version of the complainant. Anyway, this fact alone necessitates further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners. The case against them, therefore, falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

8. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the cases of Muhammad Saleem v. The State PLD 1989 Lah. 233, Ghulam Murtaza v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1691 (Karachi), Illahi Bux v. The State 2003 MLD 1044 (Karachi) and Mehrab v. The State 2004 MLD 631 (Karachi).

9. They are behind the bars for the last more than five months and stated to be previous non‑convicts.

10. In these circumstances, I do not feel the necessity to discuss any other aspect of the matter or the contentions of the parties.

11. I may mention here that due to mere heinousness of offence not necessarily always a person or group of persons can be said to be either desperate or dangerous criminals, unless it is proved that they had record of previous involvements or convictions.

12. In these circumstances, I find them entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1.00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

13. As the case is recent one, hence, I do not feel the necessity to fix any time limit for conclusion of the trial of the petitioners.

14. However, it is here made clear that any observation made above shall not influence the mind of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M‑689/L Bail granted.