1. I would like to dispose of Criminal Bail Application No,327 of 2003 of applicant Khaushnood Butt alias Papoo and Criminal Bail Application No,297 of 2003 of applicant Zafar alias Gunja alias Aslam by a single ordef, as they both arise out of the same F.I.R.
2. The applicants are facing trial in the Court of 1st Additional,. Sessions- Judge, Karachi, West for an offence under sections 324/147/148/149/34, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No,329 of 2002 of Police Station Mominabad.
3. Briefly stated the facts of this case are that complainant Moulana Feroze Uddin Rehmani was Contesting election for National Assembly seat from Constituency No,241 on M.Q.M. ticket. On fateful day i.e, 20-9-2002 he was holding a corner meeting at Altaf Chowk, Orangi Town, Karachi. At about 7-30 p.m. some terrorists of Haqiqi Group consisting of accused Khushnood Butt alias Papoo, Pervaiz alias Jala Bhuna, Rafiq Bangali son of Hafeez, Yousuf Mota, Aijaz, Mahmoodul Hassan, A.S.-I. of Police Station Mominabad and Zafar came there and opened fire upon the gathering. As a result of which seven persons sustained injuries. The injured were removed by the candidate of Constituency No,94 to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. The remaining participants of meeting took shelter on various places.
4. It is stated that this incident took place due to enmity between M.Q.M. and Haqiqi Group.
5. The F.I.R. of this case was registered by the police on 30-9-2002 at 1-40 a.m: The police took up investigation and submitted challan against the accused in their absence and shown them absconder in the challan.
6. I have heard Mr. Raza Muhammad Raza for applicant Zafar alias Gunja alias Aslam, Mr. Saadat Hassan for applicant Khushnood Butt alias Papoo and Mr. Habibur Rashid learned counsel for State.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel for applicant Khaushnood Butt alias Papoo that no specific part has been assigned to the accused. F.I.R. is delayed by about 6 hours and no explanation is given by the complainant. Accused Mahmoodul Hassan was released by police under section 169, Cr.P.C., therefore, the benefit of his release be given to the present applicant also. It is argued that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused and no overt act has been attributed to him.
8. It is argued on behalf of applicant Zafar alias Gunja alias Aslam that his name does not figure in the F.I.R. as he is never called as Zafar but his name is. Aslam. He adopted the rest of the arguments of Mr. Saadat Hassan. Reliance is placed upon the cases of Shahid. Naseem v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 1198, Ikramullah v. Sami Ullah and another 1998 M LD 1184, Muhammad Ishaque and another v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 594, Gohar Ali and another v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1052, Noor ur Rehman v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1603, Abdul Saleem v. The State 1998 SCM R 1578, Mehmood Ahmed and 3 others v.
9. The State and another 1995 SCM R 127.
10. Mr. Habibur Rashid learned counsel appearing for State has opposed the bail plea of accused on the ground that their names appear in the F.I.R, and one of the injured namely Ghulam Hussain died in the hospital. The F.I.R. was registered as Crime No,328 of 2002.
11. The record shows that corner meeting was being held by the complainant party when the applicants alongwith other terrorists assaulted the participants. The applicants belong to rival political group. The names of present applicants are appearing in the F.I.R. Injured Muhammad Ali has specifically taken the names of both the accused in his statement whereas injured Shafqat has taken the name of applicant Khushnood. Enmity is a motive for commission of this incident.
12. The applicants opened indiscriminate firing which hit seven persons including passersby. The plea that no specific part has been assigned to applicant has no force as all the culprits armed with fire-arms opened fire as a result of which seven persons sustained injuries. This is a very recent case of year 2002. The case under section 324. P.P.C. is covered by prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The case of applicants does not come under the scope of further inquiry. They do not deserve bail which is declined.