1984 P Cr (PLP)

Mian Muhammad Akram Ranjha for Respondents Malik Sarfraz Hussain for the State. Ghulam Rasool petitioner has moved this petition under section 497 (5) Cr. P. C. for cancellation of bail allowed to Naseer-ud-Din alias Nasar, Inayat, Mutalli, Sultan Ali, Manzoor son of Allah Bakhsh and Manzur son of Imam by the learned Sessions Judge, in a case registered against them under sections 148, 307, 379 read with sections 149 and 109, P. P. C.

2. The F. I. R. version is that on 7th April, 1984 at 3 p. m Naseer alias Nasar, Inayat, Mutalli and Sultan respondents and their co-accused Mumtaz attacked and injured Ghulam Rasool complainant and Liaqat P. W. Naseer and Inayat respondents and their co-accused Mumtaz were armed with guns. Naseer respondent raised a lalkara, upon which Sultan respondent took the complainant into his hold and Mutalli respondent picked up a hammer from a nearby shop and gave a blow on the back o the complainant. In the meantime Liaqat and Ahmad Yar P. Ws stepped forward to rescue the complainant, upon which co-accused Mumtaz fired at Liaqat hitting his right leg as a result of which he fell down Naseer respondent also fired. Farooq Arshad who bad a licensed gun and was boarding a bus tried to intervene but the accused persons snatched his gun and went away.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the petition against Sultan, Manzoor son of Allah Bakhsh and Manzoor son of man, He, however, submits that the allegations against Naseer, Inayat and Mutalli are of a very serious nature and they were not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The learned State Counsel supports the peti tion only against Mutalli respondent on the ground that he had given hammer blow on the back of Ghulam Rasool complainant. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submit that during the investigation it was found that Naseer alias Nasar and Inayat were not armed with any weapon and the gun allegedly snatches: by the respondents from Farooq Arshad was actually with the complainant at the time of occurrence and a case under section 16 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 has been registered against Farooq Arshad for giving his gun to Ghulam Rasool complainant of the present case. It is further submitted that according to the F. I. R. Ghulam Rasool suffered only ors; injury at the hands of Mutalli respondent but the medico-legal report does not support this version. He further states that the injury attributed to Mutalli was simple in nature.

4. I have gone through the relevant material. Manzoor Hussain son of Allah Bakhsh and Manzoor son of Imam were found innocent and have been shown in column No. 2 of the challan. The report under section

173. Cr. P. C. further shows that during the investigation it was found that A Inayat and Naseer alias Nasar respondents were not armed with any weapon. According to the F. I. R. the complainant received only one injury at the hands of Mutalli respondent. His medico-legal report, how ever, shows four injuries, all simple in nature. As regards the allegations of snatching the gun, there is no allegation in the F. I. R. that it was snatched by Inayat respondent. It is stated therein that the accused persons snatched it from Farooq Arshad. A case under section 16 of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was registered on 14th May, 1984 at Police Station Kot Moman, vide F. I. R. No. 119 (copy placed on the file) on the allegation that during the investigation of the present case it was found that Farooq Arshad had given his gun un authorisedly to Ghulam Rasool complainant of the present case. During investigation it was further found that the gun was with Ghulam Rasool complainant during the occurrence. In the circumstances, I do not consider it a fit case for interference with the order granting bail to the respondents. The petition is dismissed. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.