' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, C.J.-The supra titled appeals are directed against a consolidated order, passed by the learned Chief Justice of the Shariat Court on 7-2-2006 and have arisen out of same incident, therefore, these are disposed of through this single order.
2. Hassan Zaheer, complainant/ appellant No,2, lodged an F.I.R. At Police Station Bhimber on 6-12- 2004 at 10 a.m. In respect of an incident which took place on the same day stating that he along with his father, Muhammad Yar and his cousin Awais Salim, was standing near his house when Wajid son of Muhammad Khadim and Tahir Aziz son of Muhammad Aziz, armed with Kalashinkoves or .222 bore rifles came there and opened fire on them. Resultantly he, his father and cousin sustained fire-arm injuries. According to F.I.R. The motive behind this firing was to create unlawfully a passage from the land of complainant party. For this purpose the accused persons demolished the wall of complainant party which was raised around the land. The accused indulged in firing with an intention to commit murder. Sarwar son of Muhammad Sharif, Basharat son of Muhammad Aziz and Sajid son of Khadim Hussain were also named in the F.I.R. For having abetted the offence.
Initially the case was registered under sections 324, 34, 337-F and 109 APC. Subsequently Muhammad Yar, father of complainant, died as a result of fire-arm injuries. Thus offence under section 302, APC was also added, Wajid, accused, absconded, whereas the accused persons, Basharat and Tahir Aziz, filed separate applications for grant of bail before the District Court of Criminal jurisdiction Bhimber on 23-4-2005 and 11-6-2005 respectively which were decided separately. The application for grant of bail was allowed to the extent of Basharat vide order, dated 31-5-2005. However, this concession was declined to Tahir Aziz appellant in Appeal No, 18 of 2006 vide order, dated 16-7-2005. The complainant, Hassan Zaheer along with his brother Yasir Mehmood, as well as the accused, Tahir Mehmood, filed two revision petition separately before the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Complainant party filed revision petition for cancellation of bail granted in favour of Basharat Aziz whereas Tahir Aziz filed revision petition for grant of bail. Both the revision petitions were dismissed by the learned Chief Justice vide consolidated judgment under challenged, dated 7-2-2006.
3. Ch. Muhammad Riaz Alam, the learned counsel for Tahir Aziz, argued that in the F.I.R. No specific role is attributed to his client. He along with other accused persons is attributed to indulge in firing which caused injuries on the person of complainant, his father and cousin. Upto this time it is not clear who out of accused caused fire-arm injury which resulted in the death of Muhammad Yar, father of complainant. In these circumstances there was no justification for the Courts below to deprive the appellant, Tahir Aziz, of the concession of bail. According to the learned counsel, in this case bail has been withheld as a punishment which is not permissible under law. He submitted that the matter is one of further inquiry, because so far it is not clear who out of two persons caused injuries which resulted in the death of deceased.
4. While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused- appellant, it was Contended by Ch. Ali Muhammad Chacha, the learned counsel for the complainant, that the accused persons came with bad intention as they were carrying fire-arm weapons with them. The complainant party was standing nearby the house. The accused, Tahir Mehmood and Wajid came with bad intention. They were aggressors who caused injuries on the persons of complainant party.
They also damaged the wall of complainant party in order to create a path for themselves. As both the accused persons had taken law in their hands, therefore, none out of them was entitled to concession of bail. He further submitted that the concession of bail allowed to accused- respondent, Basharat Aziz, is unwarranted, therefore, the bail granting order may be recalled as he was an abetter. According to the learned counsel, there is sufficient evidence available on record that this incident was committed by the aforementioned two accused persons, Tahir Aziz and Wajid, who are absconder, with the abetment of Basharat Aziz. Therefore, the abetter is also not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. While defending the bail order granted in favour of Basharat Aziz, the . Learned counsel argued that al the family members of accused are involved in the offence with the connivance of police officials. According to him it is yet to be proved that the incident was committed in the way it is alleged by the prosecution and that the same was committed due to abetment of Basharat Aziz.
6. The learned Additional Advocate- General supported the arguments of Ch. Ali Muhammad Chacha, the learned counsel for the complainant.
7. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of record made available. First of all let us take Appeal No, 10 of 2006 which has been filed for cancellation of bail order granted in favour of Basharat Aziz. The Supreme Court ordinarily does not disturb the tentative opinion expressed by the Shariat Court on the merits of the case. However, if the case is in conflict with the established principles for grant of bail or bail order has been passed without taking into consideration the relevant evidence available on record, then of course, in such maters this Court in the light of given circumstances passes appropriate order or cancellation of bail. In the same way if the bail has been allowed to an accused person in accordance with sound principles laid down for grant of bail, even in that case this Court does not interfere in the bail granting order. Basharat Aziz has been blamed for abetment of offence. The learned counsel for the complainant has failed to satisfy us that the order of bail has been obtained by him through misrepresentation and suppression of true facts or the concession of bail is being abused by him in order to hamper the course of trial. Therefore, there is no justification for this Court to cancel bail order granted in his favour by the trial Court and affirmed by the Shariat Court.
8. So far the case of Tahir Aziz is concerned, that stands on different footings that of Basharat Aziz.
This accused indulged in firing. As a result of firing of Tahir Aziz and Wajid, complainant's father namely Muhammad Yar, died due to injuries he received by fire-arm. There is no evidence at present that the intention of accused Tahir Aziz, was to hit on non-vita part of complainant party.
So far the evidence of prosecution is that this accused caused injuries to complainant party by fire-arm shots which by itself was sufficient ground to believe that the accused did attempt to do away with the life of complainant party leaving aside the question as to which part of the body was hit as that is immaterial at this stage. Prima facie, the accused, Tahir Aziz, was fully connected with the commission of offence. Therefore, no error was committed by the Court below while refusing him concession of bail.
' In the light of above discussion, both the appeals having no substance are hereby dismissed.