1. ' FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, J.---This is an application under sections 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. Moved on behalf of applicant Gulzareen Gopang for seeking bail after arrest as he is wanted in Crime No,82 of 2007 of Police Station, Mirwah, registered for an offence under sections 302, 324, 34, P.P.C.
2. ' The case was initiated on F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Zaffar Ali Gopang on 24-7-2007, alleging therein, that he and his brother Muzaffar Hussain were working in their lands where accused Nazir and Imdad came, with guns and used hot words and then went away abusing. In the meantime one Muzamil aged about 2 years, paternal nephew of the complainant came there and when they were returning from the lands and reached in front of the house of accused Nazir -Gopang at 4-30 p.m., accused persons namely Nazir, Imdad with guns, Gulzareen (Applicant) with pistol and Ali Hassan came there. Accused Nazir made direct firing from his gun which hit complainant's brother Muzaffar Ali on his back and accused Imdad made direct firing at the paternal nephew of complainant namely Muzamil, who received fire-arm injuries. Injured Muzaffar was referred to Hospital where subsequently he died.
3. ' Mr. Saeed Jamal Lund learned counsel for the applicant has contended that no specific role has been attributed to the present applicant at the time of the commission of crime though according to the contents of the F.I.R. He was armed with gun but he did not use the same. Learned counsel has further contended that the specific role of causing fire-arm injuries to the deceased Muzafar All and injured Muzamil is attributed to co-accused Imdad and Nazir. In the last, the learned counsel has contended that the applicant is innocent and has been implicated falsely in the case due to enmity over property, therefore, the case against the present applicant calls for further enquiry. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Faraz Akram v. The State 1999 SCM R 1360 and Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCM R 1125.
4. ' Mr. Agha Ather Hussain learned Assistant A.-G. Appearing for the State has vehemently opposed to the grant of bail and has contended that applicant's name appears in the F.I.R., he was armed with TT Pistol at the time of commission of offence and has shared his intention to that of co- accused Nasir and Imdad who both fired at deceased Muzaffar and injured minor Muzamil aged about 2 years, the paternal nephew of the complainant. He has further argued that the witnesses have supported the version of the complainant in their statements recorded under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. As such the offence as alleged, does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of section 491(1), Cr.PrC.
5. ' I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned Assistant A.-G. Appearing for the State. I have also perused the police papers, which are available on the record.
6. ' As per the contents of the F.I.R. The incident took place on 27-4-2007 at 1630 and F.I.R. Has been lodged on the very day of the incident at 1715 hours and that at the time of incident, the present applicant Gulzareen armed with pistol along with co-accused Nazir and Imdad armed with guns and Ali Hassan came there and out of them co-accused Nazir and Imdad made direct fires from their guns at Muzaffar, brother of the complainant, who was referred to the hospital and later on he, died and have received injuries to minor' Muzamil due to their firing. The present applicant Gulzareen duly armed with pistol accompanied with the co-accused and has shown his common intention to that the co-accused and further that on 8-6-2007 he produced unlicensed .30 bore pistol along with four live bullets and claimed that it is the same pistol, which was with him at the time of the commission of offence therefore, the applicant is also vicariously liable for committing murder of Muzaffar and causing injuries to minor Muzamil.
7. ' In view of the above- facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no case for grant of bail is made out. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed.