' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 570 of 2005, dated 5-12-2005 for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Ghallah Mandi, District Sahiwal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with two others is alleged to have committed the murder of Maqbool Hussain, the father of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner did not fire at the deceased hence he cannot be held responsible for the murder of the deceased Maqbool Hussain; that the co-accused of the petitioner namely Shafqat has been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and as such in view of the law of consistency, the petitioner was also entitled to the concession of bail; that there is contradiction in the eye-witness account and the post-mortem report which proved that the case of the prosecution was false; that the witnesses of the F.I.R. Were interested witnesses and that the petitioner was behind the bars for the last about seven months without there being any progress in the trial.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner has been nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role of firing of his pistol has been ascribed to him; that during investigation also the petitioner was found to be fully involved; that the pistol weapon of offence had been recovered from the petitioner and the empties recovered from the spot, according to the report of the Forensic Science Lab. Matched with the pistol recovered from the petitioner; that the motive was also attributed to the petitioner; that the co-accused Shafqat has been granted bail by the learned Trial Court on the ground that he had become paralyzed as a result of the shot fired by the petitioner hence the rule of consistency does not apply preliminary as Shafqat was stated to be empty handed in the F.I.R. And that the challan had been submitted, charge had been framed and prosecution evidence had been summoned by the trial Court for 18-7-2006 hence the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The F.I.R. Is promptly lodged in which the petitioner is nominated and specific role of being armed with pistol and firing at the deceased which hit his co-accused Shafqat has been ascribed to him.
The petitioner has been found guilty in the investigation and the challan in the case has been submitted. After framing of charge, the case is fixed for recording of evidence of the witnesses for 18-7-2006. Recovery of the weapon of offence has been effected from the petitioner which is further corroborated by the empties recovered from the spot which have matched with the pistol recovered from him. The co-accused was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on account of the fact that he was empty handed at the time of occurrence and had been paralyzed as a result of the fire of the petitioner. Hence, the law of consistency as urged by the learned for the petitioner does not apply. The motive has also been attributed to the petitioner. A tentative assessm ent of the evidence on the recorded reveals that prima facie there is enough evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of murder of Maqbool Hussain, the father of the complainant.
7. Resultantly, this petition being without merit is dismissed.