' LIAQAT ALI SHAH, J.--- Having failed to get the concession of bail from the Court below, the petitioner namely Abdul Karim son of Bahader Khan has applied to this Court for bail in case F.I.R.
No,69 dated 8-7-2009 Police Station Sakha Kot registered under sections 302/ 324/114/148/149.
2. Learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
3. On 8-7-2009 complainant Mand Akbar reported to the police on the spot, that on that day, he along with his sons Gul Akbar Khan, Akbar Shah, Noor Akbar, Mukarram, Bacha Khan and Akbar, Zaman were present in their land situated in Kamargai Pakistan Koroona for the purpose of irrigation. It was at about 0530 hours that accused Saltanat Khan son of Bahader, Abid, Mujahid sons of Saltanat Khan, Jehangir and Anwar Zeb sons of Muhammad Akbar duly armed with Kalashnikovs and accused Abdul Karim (the petitioner) and Muhammad Akbar empty handed came there; that on saying of the latter two, the remaining accused started firing at them and as result of the firing of Saltanat Khan, his son Gul Akbar Khan, from the firing of accused Abid his son Akbar -Khan, from the firing of accused Mujahid, Noor Akbar and from the firing of Jehangir, Mukaram and from the firing of Anwar Zeb, Bacha Khan got injured. Gul Akbar died on the spot.
Complainant and Akbar Zaman escaped unhurt. Motive for the offence was dispute over the turn of irrigation. The victims namely Akbar Khan, Mukaram Khan and Noor Akbar Khan also succumbed to the injuries later on. Beside the complainant, the petitioner/accused were also charged by Muhammad Sardar son of Gul Naseeb injured, Bacha Khan and Akbar Zaman in their statements before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. And also in their statements under section 164, Cr.P.C.
4. Not doubt, in this unfortunate incident four persons of one family lost their lives and the 5th one got injured but it is not the damage alone which is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of bail. What the law provides is that if it appears at any stage of investigation, inquiry or trial that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall' pending such inquiry be released on bail.
5. The allegation against the petitioner/accused are to the effect that he was empty-handed and along with his brother Muhammad Akbar directed the remaining co-accused to fire at the complainant party. The petitioner/accused happens to be brother of his co-accused A Muhammad Akbar and paternal uncle of the remaining co-accused except accused Sultanat, who is also his brother.##TED## Unlike his other co-accused, he surrendered voluntarily before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi and applied for pre-arrest bail within a few days after the charge against him. He is charged along with his brother Muhammad Akbar for directing the remaining accused to fire at the complainant party. When. Muhammad Akbar co-accused is charged for commanding his sons and nephews to fire at the complainant party, whether any such command was required by the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant had relied on 2006 SCMR 966 and PLD 2008 Pesh.
45. It is an established principle that each criminal case has its own peculiar circumstances and is to be decided on the basis of its own merits. However, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant are distinguishable. In 2006 SCMR 966, leave was refused by the Honourable apex Court. In that case, the petitioner was the only person specifically nominated in the F.I.R. For raising Lalkara to facilitate his co-accused to commit the murder of the deceased and the background of the case was that prior to that incident another criminal case was registered against the petitioner at the instance of deceased of that case wherein the deceased and his daughter had to appear as witnesses. Additionally, the petitioner therein was also shown to be armed. In PLD 2008 Pesh. 45, only the petitioner before the High Court was charged for commanding his co-accused. It may be mentioned that in that case, the accused who was charged for acting under the command was granted bail whereas the petitioner in that case who was charged only for command was refused bail, Whereas in the instant case two persons are charged for commanding the absconding co-accused. It is also not clear in the said judgment as to whether petitioner in both the cases had also surrendered like the petitioner in the case in hand.
Keeping in view, all the above facts, the case of the petitioner appears to be one of further inquiry.
As such he is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,10,00,000 (ten Lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court who shall ensure that the sureties are local and men of means.