1990 P Cr (PLP)

S- 497

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 307, 148 &,149

Bail, grant of-- Nothing existed on record to indicate relationship of accused with his co-accused who had been attributed direct motive

Accused was alleged to have fired ineffectively one shot and that also when deceased was hit by fire shot of co- accused and had fallen down

It was yet to be seen whether accused shared common intention with co-accused and that aspect could only be determined after recording of evidence

Case prima facie appearing to be of further inquiry- -Accused was thus entitled to concession of bail. Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti for Petitioner Mst. Tasneem Amin for the State. Arshad petitioner is involved in a case registered against him and four others with Police Station Khankah Dogran. District Sheikhupura, for offences under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. dated 21-12-1988. The allegation against the petitioner and his co-accused is that on 21-12-1988 at about 10-30 a.m. Muhammad Arif (deceased) was going in the street alongwith his sheep, and Abdul Khaliq, the first informant, was standing outside in the lane. When Muhammad Arif reached near the shop of Arshad petitioner, the co -accused of the petitioner armed with different fire-arms, alongwith the petitioner armed with a carbine, surprised said Arif and made a murderous assault. The role ascribed to the petitioner is that he alongwith Ijaz and Liaqat fired ineffectively. It is contended by learned counsel,, for the petitioner that the petitioner had no motive to participate in the commission of the offence. Submits that even if the allegation against him is accepted, it is only of ineffective firing and that also at the time when the deceased had already been hit with the fireshots of Boota and Azam, co-accused. Submits that in these circumstances, the question whether the petitioner intended to cause any injury to the deceased is yet to be determined, therefore, it becomes a case of further inquiry. Submits that no empty was recovered from the spot, which could connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.

2. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. There is nothing on the record to indicate the relationship of the petitioner with Boota and Azam, co-accused, who have been 'attributed direct motive. The petitioner is alleged to have fired ineffectively one shot, that also when the deceased Arif was hit by the fire-shots of Boota and Azam and had fallen down. In these E ' circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel has some force that it is yet to be seen whether the petitioner shared the common intention with his co- accused. This aspect can only be determined after some evidence has been recorded. Prima facie, it appears to be a case of further inquiry, which entitles the petitioner to the concession of bail. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned. H.B.T./A-930/L Petition allowed.