1. ' FARRUKH ZIA G. SHAIKH, J. Applicant Shabir Ahmed has filed this Application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Seeking bail, who is wanted in Crime No,88 of 2006 registered at Police Station, Mirpur Mathelo, District Ghotki, for offences under sections 324 and 34, P.P.C.
2. 'Succinctly, the prosecution story is that the case was initiated on an F.I.R lodged by complainant Bashir Ahmed on 25-5-2006 stating therein that about two years ago, a case of abduction of Mst.
3. Farida, wife of Muhammad Yakoob, was lodged against him and others, on which Muhammad Yakoob was annoyed with him (Complainant) and had issued threats that they will murder him. On 25-5-2006 at about 0800 hours Complainant had gone to attend the hearing before the Court of learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, along with his ' brother Nazir Ahmed and maternal uncle Mukhtiar Ahmed and when they reached at the outer door of the Court, co- accused Muhammad Yakoob armed with catridge pistol of .12 bore, whereas Shabir Ahmed (Applicant) empty handed, asked the complainant that he had sufficient time and today he will be murdered. Due to fear the complainant went inside the Court room whereas co-accused Muhammad Yakoob with intention to kill him, opened straight fire upon the complainant and resultantly he received one pellet injury on his right cheek, right shoulder, one muscle of left arm and over the hand and left side waist. Co-accused Muhammad Yakoob and Applicant Shabir Ahmed tried to escape from the spot but accused Muhammad Yakoob was caught hold by the police personnel whereas applicant Shabir Ahmed made his escape good.
4. ' An application for bail, was moved on behalf of the present applicant, which was dismissed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, on 19-9-2008.
5. ' Mr. Ghous Bux Kaheri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, has contended that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and has relied upon pleas of alibi that at the time of incident, the Applicant was in Karachi. He has further contended that the main accused in this case in Muhammad Yakoob, who is on bail, however, he has stated in Court that the matter of Muhammad Yakoob is sub judice and it is yet to be determined whether the compromise between him (Muhammad Yakoob) and Mst. Farida is genuine or not and this matter has not yet been resolved. He has also submitted that no case against the applicant is made out, only there is section 34, P.P.C. Which goes against him A and no specific role has been assigned to him in the commission of the offence. He has further submitted that the case does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore it is fit case for grant of bail. Lastly, he has argued that the applicant is in jail since 23-3-2007 i.e about more than 20 months and there is no case pending against him and there is no possibility to complete the case in the near future. In support of above contentions, he has relied upon 2005, PCr.LJ 16, PLD 1915(sic) SC 20 and 1999 SCM R 1360.
6. ' On the other hand, Mr. Agha Ather Hussain, learned Assistant Advocate-General, appearing on behalf of the State, while defending the State- has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and has contended that the applicant is named in the F.I.R. And was present at the time of the commission of offence. He submitted that the prosecution witnesses in their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements, have fully implicated the present Applicant and there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. Moreover, the applicant has remained an absconder and a fugitive from law, and does not deserve any leniency in normal course.
7. ' Offences under section 324, P.P.C. As well as section 34, P.P.C. For ease of reference are reproduced herein under:-- "34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. --When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
324. Attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amd. -- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances, that, if he by that act caused Qatl, he would be guilty of Qatl-i- Amd, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.
1. (but shall not be less than five years, if the offence has been committed in the name or on the pretext of honuor)' and shall also be liable to fine, and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall 2. (in addition to the imprisonment and fine as aforesaid) be liable to the punishment provided for the hurt caused: 'Provided that, where the punishment for the hurt is Qisas which is not executable, the offender shall be liable to arsh and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years."
8. On perusal of section 34, P.P.C. Mentioned hereinabove, it is clear that when a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such person is liable for such act in the same manner as if it were done alone by him. Even otherwise it is now become a common practice that litigants are harmed and threatened in Court premises when they come to pursue their cases and such menace has to be stopped.
9. For what has been stated above, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for C grant of bail.
10. Consequently this bail application is dismissed.
11. ' However, at the request of learned Counsel, the trial Court is directed to complete the case within a period of there months.
12. ' The application stands disposed of.