2007 PLP 255 (YLR)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

The petitioners are accused of commission of offences vide case F.I.R. No.154 dated 29-5-2006 under sections 324/452/447/ 511/380/427/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Shah Jamal, District Muzaffargarh, According to the contents of the F.I.R., along with 27 persons (22 known and 5 unknown), including the petitioner No.1 armed with a Kalashnikov, petitioners Nos.2 and 3 armed with pistols, petitioner No.5 armed with a gun and petitioner No.4 unarmed came on a Pick-up and Motorcycles and started straight firing. However, nobody got hurt. It was then stated that with an intention to illegally take over possession of shops and house, the said persons went to the roof of the shops and the house. The roof was removed. The goods present in the shops were destroyed. Some items mentioned in the F.I.R. were also taken away. Several persons gathered. The petitioners were arrested on 29-5-2006. Their bail application was dismissed by a learned Magistrate on 1-7-2006 and then by a learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Muzaffargarh, on 20-7-2006.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that prima facie, the contents of the F.I.R. are false and highly improbable. According to him, the mere fact that firing is attributed to so many persons and no one having been injured, is enough to grant bail to his clients. He also contends that the case is false and his clients have been maliciously roped in as, in fact, the property in question is owned by his clients and it was the complainant party who attacked them and injured them. He relies on the judgments in the cases of Shafaqat alias Gunga and 2 others v. The State (1994 PSC (Crl.) 789), Rab Nawaz v. The State (1990 SCMR 1085) and Abdul Aziz and another v. The State (NLR 1996 Cr.LJ 115). The learned counsel for the complainant assisting the learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the bail application with the contention that a murderous assault was made and his clients were lucky to escape. According to him, the petitioners are members of a gang of hardened criminals and several cases stand registered against them.

3. I have gone through the records brought by the police officer. Now I do find that although the weapons have been recovered from petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 yet nothing turns on the same. The reason being that according to the F.I.R., complainant and his brother and Ijaz Ahmad were present when 29 persons opened fire on them with various weapons. Admittedly, no one was injured. The only assumption would be that the firing was resorted to without taking any aim and this being so, the question of intent becomes a matter of further inquiry. Similarly, both the parties are claiming title in the said property and this will also to be determined in the course of the trial. In the said judgments being relied upon by the learned counsel, grant of bail was held-to be proper in case of ineffective firing. The petitioners are behind the bars for the last more than four months. The Cr. Misc. accordingly is allowed and the petitioners are granted bail subject to their furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 -each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The police records be returned. H.B.T./G-64/L Bail granted.