1. By this application, the accused have prayed to enlarge them on bail.
2. The accused alongwith co-accused have been challaned to face trial under Sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, 34 PPC vide FIR No, 72/2006 dated 28.5.2006 recorded at P.S. Pirabad lodged by complainant Abdul Ghafoor son of Mian Rasool.
3. The case of the prosecution as per FIR is that the complainant alongwith his brothers and family used to reside at the address mentioned in the FIR and is a Transporter. On 28.5.2006 he was present at his house and some repair work was being done by the labours on the wall of his house.
4. At about 4.00 p.m. his neighbours Ghulam Abbas son of Abdullah, Mawaz Khan son of Abdullah, Imran Khan son of Abdullah came and started abusing him and asked him to remove the labours working on the wall of his house and the complainant tried to elucidate them, meanwhile Mawaz Khan alongwith his brothers and sisters namely Naseeban Khatoon, Noori and Hameeda Khatoon reached there, who were armed with hatchets and clubs and attacked on him. The accused Gul Khatoon alias Gukki inflicted a club blow on the skull of his mother who sustained club injury, complainant removed her to doctor for first-aid. When he reached at his house at about 5.00 p.m. accused Ghulam Abbas Khan son of Abdullah, accused Mawaz Khan son of Abdullah and accused Imran Khan son of Abdullah came at his house duly armed with fire arm weapons and immediately on their arrival they started firing which hit to his younger brother Farooq son of Mian Rasool who sustained bullet injury due to firing of accused Mawaz Khan son of Abdullah and fell down on the ground meanwhile accused Naseeban Khatoon daughter of Abdullah inflicted hatchet blow on the skull of his brother Farooq, who after sustaining the said injury expired on the spot. The accused Ghulam Abbas son of Abdullah fired on his another brother Riaz which hit on the chest of his brother. Accused Hameeda Khatoon, Irfan Khan inflicted hatchet blow on his brother Riaz Khan with intention to kill him who sustain such injuries on his fore-head, to whom he removed to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, who also subsequently expired in the Hospital, as such the police who reached at Abbasi Shaheed Hospital recorded the statement of complainant under Section 164, Cr.P.C., which is incorporated in FIR book.
5. After registration of the FIR, initially the bail before arrest was granted to the present applicants by the learned trial Court which was withdrawn vide order of the High Court dated 07/ 3/2007 in Cr.
6. Misc. Application No, 159/2006. The present accused were arrested who filed post arrest bail application before the learned trial Court, who after hearing the learned counsel for the parties dismissed the same vide order dated 08.9.2007. Hence the present application.
7. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Arshad Tariq, advocate for the applicants, Mr. Syed Suleman Badshah, advocate for the complainant and Ms. Afsheen Aman, State counsel.
8. Mr. Arshad Tariq, advocate vehemently contended that there is a delay of about six hours in registration of the FIR which has not been properly explained, which created reasonable doubt in the story put forward by the complainant. He further pointed out that no overt act is attributed to the present applicants regarding inflicting any fatal blow to both the deceased and it is yet to be determined as to whether the blunt substance injury, sustained by the deceased Farooq Khan, was the result of hatchet blow or by some other substance. According to him the confession of accused Ghulam Abbas also exonerates the remaining accused from the present crime and that the accused of the present case being ladies are entitled for concession of bail in view of sub-section
(1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In support of his contention he relied upon the cases of Muhammad Aslam vs. State reported in 1997 SCMR 215; Shoaib Mehmood Butt vs. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and others reported in 1996 SCM R 1845 and Inamul Haq vs. State reported in 2005 M LD 1312.
9. Mr. Suleman Badshah, advocate for complainant vehemently contended that the names of all the accused have been mentioned in the FIR coupled with the specific role played by them at the time of incident. He further contended that no enmity has been alleged against the complainant to involve these accused falsely in the heinous offence of double murder. According to him no birth certificate of the minor of accused Naseeban Khatoon was filed before the learned trial Court and the birth certificate has been subsequently managed and filed with the present application just to create a ground for bail of accused Naseeban Khatoon. He further contended that the medical evidence available on record also supports the version of eye-witnesses as such no case for further inquiry has been made out at this stage and the application is liable to be dismissed.
10. Ms. Afsheen Aman, State Counsel also supported the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.
11. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the material available before me. As per FIR the accused Ghulam Hussain, Mawaz Khan and Imran Khan all sons of Abdullah came to the house of the complainant and abused him on the repair work on his wall, the complainant elucidated them. The accused Naseeban Khatoon, Noori, Hameeda Khatoon also present there duly armed with hatchet and club and accused Gul Khatoon alias Gukki inflicted club blow on the skull of mother of complainant. She was removed to the hospital and when she after dressing was brought to the house, accused duly armed with fire- arms, hatchet and club again visited the house of the complainant and attacked on them, the brothers of the complainant namely: Farooq Khan and Riaz Khan succumbed to the injuries. The said assertion contained in the FIR very clearly shows, that the second arrival of the accused at the house of the complainant duly armed with fire arms, hatchet and clubs was premeditated. The accused Mawaz Khan directly fired on the deceased Farooq, who fell down, who was against attacked by accused Naseeban Khatoon with the hatchet on his skill who died on the spot The accused Ghulam Hussain also inflicted fire-arm injury on the chest of deceased Riaz Khan and accused Hameeda and Imran Khan also attacked on him with hatchet who sustained such injury on his skull and also succumbed to the said injuries. The said act attributed to the accused, very clearly shows that that they committed murder of the deceased intentionally. The specific froles have also been attributed to all the accused, as such all the accused who came at the house of the complainant are vicariously liable for the offence of murder though they have played any role at the time of incident or not in view of Section 34 PPC.
12. The medical evidence available on record shows that the deceased Farooq Khan sustained Injuries No, 2 and 3 which were inflicted with blunt weapon and the use of hatchet from back side at the time of incident could not be ignored or ruled out. The counter version of the accused party is also of no avail to enlarge them on bail in view of specific role attributed to each of them in the FIR. The ocular evidence as well as medical evidence fully connect the present accused in the present crime as such, in my humble opinion, no case for bail has been made out at this stage. In criminal administration of justice, each case has its own peculiar circumstances and could not be equated with any other reported case. The case laws, which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants, in my humble opinion, are distinguishable from the circumstances of the present case and are inapplicable.
13. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that the case of the lady accused is protected under sub-section (1) to Section 497 Cr.P.C. is not attracted for the simple reason that the accused ladies have fully participated at the time of incident and they did not hesitate in committing murder of two young persons as such the said benefit is not available to them.
14. For the above said reasons, I do not find it, a case for further inquiry. The learned trial Court rightly rejected the bail application filed by the accused. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed.