2002 PLP 1496 (MLD)

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused has insisted that his client has been arrested since January, 2000 and is languishing in jail, he is entitled to the concession of bail by virtue of the fact that even though his name has been shown in the F.I.R. and it has also been mentioned that he was armed with a K.K. However, specific role has not beep attributed to him as regard those persons who were shot at and either injured or killed. If that be so, then the role of Muhammad Pannah son of Arbi would fall in the last category where it is stated that all persons fired from the K.Ks. hit Ghulam Rasool and Khan Muhammad. Apparently from the Medical Report it seems that two people who were injured i.e. Ghulam Rasool and Khan Muhammad, both of them received injuries on their thighs. Both Ghulam Rasool and Khan Muhammad received one injury. So, if the presumption is to' be made based upon the story reported in the F. I. R. then the present applicant/accused would be responsible for either injuring Khan Muhammad or Ghulam Rasool. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following case -laws:‑‑ (1) Jan Muhammad alias Janoo v. The State (1994 PCr. LJ 541) (2) Bahadar v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 361). (3) Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State (1996 SCMR 1125) (4) Muhammad Sadiq and another v. The State (1998 SCMR 626) (5) Abdul Aziz v. The State (1996 SCMR 1693). (6) Mumtaz Hussain and others v. The State (1996,SCMR 1125) (7) Syed Qaim Ali Shah v. The State (1992 PCr.LJ 9). (8) Sakhi Zaman and 2 others v. The State and another (1998 MLD 1957). (9) Bashir Ahmed v. The State (1989 PCr.LJ 1783). The counsel appearing on behalf of the State, vehemently opposed the granting of bail as according to him the case was one where two people had died and several persons were injured. There was premeditated attempt to inflict harm by all the accused upon the complainant party. From the F.I.R. it seems that the incident occurred at 8‑00 a.m. on the 28‑12‑1999, by 8‑45 a.m. the report had been submitted. One cannot dispute the fact that there was animosity between the two groups and that even the complainant's group when leaving for the Court had with them two members who were duly armed. These two people have also fired back in retaliation. Whilst indeed a carnage has taken place, but one fails to understand that within a span of 45 minutes, the incident occurred and was reported. The police station is about two kilometres from the place of incident. The complainant seems to me a person with sharp memory as he has given not only the name of the person including the father's name, his residence and his caste. He has also given minute details of who fired at whom, what injury was inflicted and how the bullet entered the body. In a situation where so many people confront another group of people and mayhem occurs, it would be difficult to digest that a complainant who was in the heart of the incident would be having the presence of the mind to recognize so many people. He would then also check and see who hit whom, and finally perhaps as a parting shot all collectively fired in order to implicate the accused effectively. After noticing all this, he went across to the police station and accurately recorded the incident. For the appreciation of the evidence available prima facie one has to see that besides the name of the person appearing in the F. I. R. and even a role being attributed, whether the complainant has been able to make out a credible an effective story which could be believed. Indeed at the time of granting of bail one cannot go into the depth of the whole incident as that picture would only emerge once evidence is recorded. At the present moment the application that requires consideration by me is whether bail should be granted on a prima facie appreciation of the facts. I hold that the accused has created enough doubt in the story of the complainant as to bring this bail application within the ambit of further enquiry. As a result of above discussion, the bail is granted to the applicant in sum of Rs.2,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./M‑338/K Bail granted.