1. ' SYED SHA FQAT ALI SHAH MASOOMI, J.---The applicants are seeking bail in Crime No, 68 of 2009, Police Station, Nausharo Feroze under section 324, 506/2, 337H(ii), 504, 34, P.P.C.
2. ' The brief facts leading to the present bail application are that complainant Ali Ahmed Vistro lodged F.I.R. On 10-4-2009 at 1230 hours at Police Station N. Feroze, stating therein that he is an Advocate of Sessions Court as well as High Court and also Member of District Bar Association N.
3. Feroze. It is further alleged in the that some days back he received threats of dire consequences through Mobile Phone No,0302-3232788, hence he made such report at P.S. N. Feroze in which the names were not given, subsequently, he came to know that Raza Muhammad Machhi, Jani Machhi, Shabbir Machhi and Zaib Machhi issued threats to him, whereupon, the complainant inquired from them as to why they have abused him and issued threats, on which they became annoyed, as such he moved application to the President District Bar Association Nausharo Feroze on 7-4-2009 and such resolution was passed in the meeting and sent applications to the higher officers. It is further alleged that yesterday at about 5-30 p.m., when he was sitting in his office, accused Ghulam Shabbir, Zaib, All Raza, Jani Machhi armed with pistols came there, they challenged the complainant that they will kill him and saying so, accused Shabbir Machhi with intention to kill him made straight fire shot from his pistol but the complainant took the shelter of table and fire missed and the other accused also made aerial firing, then P. Ws. Talib Hussain Lashari and Riaz Hussain Lanjar came and rescued the complainant and then the accused person while issuing threats fled away. The complainant then appeared at P.S. And lodged the F.I.R.
4. ' Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learned Assistant Prosecutor-General for the State as well as complainant who is present in person.
5. ' Complainant has stated in the F.I.R. That he is Advocate of one Mst. Hameeda and the present applicant No,1 Ghulam Shabbir was ex-husband of said Mst. Hameeda who divorced Mst.
6. Hameeda, as Mst. Hameed filed suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband Ghulam Shabbir Machhi and in the said suit complainant was her Advocate, whereupon Ghulam Shabbir applicant No,1 and ex-husband of Mst. Hameeda annoyed upon the complaint. Names of both the applicants appear in the F.I.R. With specific role and Mashirnama of place of vardat shows four holes of bullets on the wall behind the chair of complainant in his office, complainant is Advocate by profession while he was sitting in his office, when the offence took place. Four empties of bullets were also recovered from the place of incident. The learned counsel for the applicants on the various points i,e, delay in lodging of F.I.R., delay in recovery of weapons and recovery of bullets have relied upon the case-law reported in 1996 SCM R 1654, 1998 SCMR 445, 1998 SCM R 500, 1999 PCr.LJ 140, 2001 PCr.LJ Karachi 1691 and 2003 YLR Kar.2160. These case-law are quite different and distinguishable with the facts and circumstances of the present case. This fact is also admitted by the lerned counsel for the applicants that Mst. Hameeda had filed case for dissolution of marriage against applicant No,1 Ghulam Shabbir Machhi and that case was pending before the court in that case the complainant was Advocate for Mst. Hameeda. In the present case the learned counsel for the applicants has failed to convince this court that the complainant being an Advocate for a poor helpless lady and was giving her legal assistance against applicant No,1 Ghulam Shabbir and on that account, accused Shabbir annoyed upon complainant. Accused Ghulam Shabbir and other co-accused in furtherance of their common intention duly armed with pistols entered in the office of complainant directly fired upon him with intention to commit his B murder but the fires missed.
7. Four bullet holes were found on the wall of complainant's office behind the chair of complaint. Four empties of bullets have been recovered from the place of incident. Special role has been assigned to the applicants.
8. In view of the above circumstances, the applicants have failed to make out a case of further enquiry. The bail application having no merit is dismissed. Trial Court is directed to conclude trial within three months without fail.
9. ' However, the observations made herein above are tentative in nature for the purpose of only disposal of bail application and may not influence the mind of trial Court which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to merits of the case.