The petitioners seek bail in case under Sections 302, 454, 427, 324, 342, 354, 382, 148/149 and 109 PPC registered vide FIR No. 187 dated 27.6.2006 at Police Station Sher Sultan, District Muzafar Garh.
2. The brief facts of the case which was registered on the application of Muhammad Ashraf, are that on 27.6.2006, at 8:30 a.m sixty seven accused including twenty un-identified persons while armed with various weapons including fire-arm and blunt weapons attacked upon the complainant and his companions while they were siting in the "baithak" of Manzoor Hussain in connection with mourning of one of their relatives. During the occurrence twenty one persons including the ladies received injuries and out of injured PWs. Waheed-u-Rehman died in the Nishtar Hospital on the same day i.e. 27.6.2006 as a result of firearm injury which was allegedly caused by Tariq co-accused. It was further alleged by the complainant that accused party barged into certain houses of complainant party and forcibly took away certain articles including T.Vs ornaments clothes and cash etc.
3. After the dismissal of bail application by the learned trial Court, petitioners have sought bail after arrest from this Court, through the instant petition.
4. At the time of the conclusion of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners after reading the mind of the Court decided to withdraw the bail application to the extent of Yaqoob, Pervaiz and Zulifqar, petitioners. So to their extent the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that it was a case of free fight; that injuries received by the accused side were totally suppressed by the complainant. He has further contended that mere reading of the FIR makes it crystal clear that prosecution case is based upon falsehood and male fides in as much as huge number of sixty seven person has been involved in this case and interestingly each of 47 accused has been attributed specific role in the FIR, though it was humanly impossible to watch and remember, each and every injury received by more than 20 persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further added that fifteen co-accused have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court vide order dated 28.9.2006 and case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from them. He has further submitted that though there was allegations of looting of certain articles by the accused party yet during the investigation nothing was recovered from them.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has contended that the petitioners are specifically named in the FIR and specific role has also been attributed to them. He has further contended that challah has been submitted and the trial is likely to be commenced as the case is fixed for framing of charge. According to the learned counsel for the complainant on the last date of hearing before the trial Court the charge could not be framed due to absence of the learned counsel for the accused.
7. Before concluding the case, I would like to mention the role attributed to each of the petitioners though the chart which is given as under:-- Sr.
No.NameWeaponRole 1 Kleemullah "Sota" "Ialkara"
2 Ahmad7razIron RodInjury on the buttocks of Dilawar PW 3 Muhammad Anwar"Sota" General role that Alongiwth Tanveer co-accused caused injuries to Zarina, P.W.
4 Muhammad TufailIron rodGeneral role that he alongwith Rab Nawaz and Lal caused injuries to Zakia PWs 5 Tanveer AbbasIron rodCaused injury on the head of Afzal, PW 6 Tanveer AhmadIron rodGeneral role that he alongvvith Anwar injured Zarina PW Ij az Empty handedCaused injury to Azam PW with "sofa"
8 Muhammad Ayoub"sots" No role.
9 Qamaru- Zaman"Sota" Only General allegation of causing injuries to injured PWs.
8. Admittedly Kaleemullah, Ahmad Fraz, Muhamad Anwar and Muhammad Tufail petitioners were declared innocent by the police. The injury attributed to Ahmed. Fraz accused was not supported by the MLR. No recovery was effected from Muhammad Anwar petitioner and according to. the MLR of Zarina to whom he had allegedly caused injuries, there was no substantial injury except complainant of pain in her body. No recovery of weapon was effected from Tufail, Tanveer Abbas: accused and the injuries attributed to them are also simple in nature.
9. After going through the record and hearing both the parties at the great length J have come to the conclusion that the case of the petitioners require further inquiry in as much as about 67 persons have been involved in this case and surprisingly the role of causing specific injuries has been attributed to each of the accused which is neither possible nor believable. The fact that five perSons on the side of the petitioner received injuries during the same occurrence coupled with the fact that 67 persons on the side of accused and more than 21 persons on the side of the complainant allegedly took part in the occurrence prima facie shows that it was a case of free fight in which both the sides freely participated. Though according to the learned counsel for the petitioners five persons on the side of the accused party were injured in this occurrence and were got medically examined by the police itself yet their medico-legal certificates were not placed upon the record by the I.O. copy of said certificates has been shown to the Court which indicates that the said accused were got examined by a police official namely Muhammad Aslam who after getting accused medically examined also received the copies of the same. The application under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. for registration of counter version was filed by accused side on 4.7.2006 but unfortunately is admittedly pending adjudication till date:
10. It has been observed that the accused side has not only received blunt and sharp edged weapon injuries but one of them Muhammad Ayoub received a fire-arm injury also This fact also shows that prima facie it was a case which occurred due to the reason of losing of election by accused party a day earlier to the occurrence.
11.The case of the petitioners is at par with fifteen co-accused who already have been granted bail by the learned trial Court and especially the case of Nasrullah and Munir Hussain co-accused is identical with that of the petitioners. Said order dated 28.9.2006 has not been challenged, till date.
Kaleemullah, Ahmad Faraz, Muhammad C Anwar and Muhammad Tufail petitioners have been declared innocent during the investigation. None of the petitioners has caused any injury to the deceased. Muhammad Ayoub and Qamar Zaman petitioners have received injuries during the same occurrence. The question of the vicarious liability would be determined by the learned trial Court after . recording of the evidence. At present suffice to say that the petitioners have succeeded to make the case as that of further inquiry and as such they are entitled to bail after arrest. As far as the objection of the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioners are not entitled to bail as the charge is going to be framed on the next date of `hearing suffice to say that it is settled law that if the case of the accused becomes that of further inqUiry then he would be entitled to bail as a matter of right and refusal of bail on the ground of start of trial is a question of the proprietary which would give way to the right as has been held in following reported cases:- 1.PLD 1989 Supreme Court 585.
2.2002 M LD 712.
3: PLJ 2004 Criminal cases 666. 4.. PLD 1989 Lahore 233.
12. For all the reasons stated above, apart from Yaqoob, Pervaiz and Zulifqar all the other nine petitioners are granted bail subject to their furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.