1998 P Cr (PLP)

M.S. Shad for Petitioner. A.H. Masood for the State. The petitioner, who is involved, in a case under section 302/324/332/ 353/34, P.P.C. and 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance, arising out of F.I.R. No.275 of 1996, dated 12-6-1996, registered at Police Station A-Division, District Sheikhupura, seeks to be admitted to bail.

2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the complainant alongwith other police officials was on patrol duty in a Vehicle No.9624/MNK. When he reached near the house of Sh. Muhammad ,Zia, Civil Lines, he found three persons in suspicion. The complainant in order to check them, stopped the vehicle. Muhammad Amin, Constable No. disembarked from the vehicle and stepped forward to check those persons while the other was still coming out of the vehicle. All the three persons, suddenly started firing on the police party which hit Muhammad Amin, Constable, on his face, who fell down. The complainant and the other police officials shot on the accused to surrender but the accused persons kept on firing and fled towards the stadium, who were followed by the police and in the stadium, one of the accused was hit by the fire of the police and two other accused fled away in the storm. One of the accused who was injured was found to be Mushtaq, resident of Lakho Der, Lahore who told the name of the other accused as Javed and Yasin. Muhammad Amin, Constable, later on died of the injuries, so was one of the accused Mushtaq.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not a nominated accused, only the alleged co-accused of the petitioner Musthaq at the time of his death disclosed the name of the petitioner to the Police Officer. The petitioner was never put to test identification parade and the petitioner is not 'a previous convict. The police has involved the petitioner falsely in this case. The version given in the F.I.R. is against the medical evidence, as after receiving so many injuries. Mushtaq deceased was riot competent to make any statement as mentioned in the F.I.R. The statement made before the police is not admissible in the eye of law. The recovery of the weapons at the instance of the petitioner is fake and manipulated and it gives no corroboration to the police version and placed reliance on 1992 PCr.LJ 764,PLD 1972 SC 277, 1980 SCMR 784, 1994 PCr.LJ 511 and 1984 PCr.LJ 436.

4. Learned counsel for the State, assisted by the Police Officer, has opposed this bail application on the ground that the police had apparent no enmity against the petitioner, it is the co-accused Mushtaq deceased who gave information about the petitioner. In the police encounter, one constable died and there was firing between the accused persons and the police party and at the spot, so many crime empties found which give credence version to the F.I.R. During the judicial inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, the version of the police found correct; hence prima facie there exists reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is a nominated accused in the F.I.R., on the basis of the information divulge to the complainant by Mushtaq deceased, co accused of the petitioner. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Yasin is P.O., and according to the contents of the F.I.R. in a police encounter, the petitioner and co-accused opened fire to the police party; hence in the presence of this material referred "above, there exists reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause. The contention of the learned counsel that the principle of vicarious criminal liability is not applicable to the facts of this case, requires deeper appreciation of evidence and the material, which exercise cannot be undertaken at this stage which is summary in nature. The cases-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable; hence no case for the grant of bail is made out and this petition is dismissed accordingly. H.B.T./J-30/L Petition dismissed.