2007 PLP 2621 (YLR)

FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.

Petitioner Khan Muhammad seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.507 of 2004 dated 15-12-2004 offence under sections 302/324/109/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Saddar Dunyapur, District Lodhran.

2. It is contended that the petitioner, along with his two elder brothers had been falsely involved in this case only due to friendship of petitioner with Dilawar Hussain. No injury is attributed to petitioner on the body of deceased. However, the injury attributed to the petitioner was caused on the body of injured witness is not on the vital part. Further contends that it was a daylight occurrence and it was not possible to identify the accused in a torch light when a firing is going on and it is not possible to identify who is firing at whom. Further contends that the empty recovered from the place of occurrence, where petitioner Khan Muhammad was said to have been standing, does not match with the gun recovered from him. Further contends that; co-accused Muhammad Iqbal had been released on bail and the case of the petitioner is at par, thus under the rule of consistency, he is also entitled to the same relief.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant party contends that the- bail granted to Muhammad Iqbal was based on different grounds, only Lalkara is attributed to him, whereas, the petitioner had caused fire-arm injury by firing at Muhammad Latif which hit him on the head. The learned State counsel also opposed the bail application contending that a specific role is attributed to the petitioner. He is duly named in the F.I.R. and he is not entitled for concession of bail.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner is said to have been standing at the distance of 22-feet from where he tired at Muhammad Latif with his .12 bore gun; which hit him on the head (as per the F.I.R.). Only one shot is attributed to the petitioner, whereas, the police had recovered two empties from the place of occurrence where the petitioner was standing. However, the empties sent to FSL does not match the gun alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner. The main accused of the F.I.R. are said to have been standing on six feet from where they fired on the complainant party whereas the petitioner was standing at the distance of 22-feet from where he fired on the complainant party and hit on Muhammad Hanif. In the circumstances of the case as narrated in the F.I.R., the complainant saw the accused in the torch light. Dilawar Hussain and other accused were standing at one point, whereas, the petitioner was standing at a different point; and. all of the said to have been firing at the complainant party. Since the empty, which were taken into possession from the spot where the petitioner was standing does not match the gun recovered from him. In these circumstances of the case his case is that of further inquiry. 5 In view of the above discussion, the bail application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 rupees one lac only, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./K-18/L Bail granted.