Through this application under Section 498 Cr.P.C. the applicants, Qaim Khan, Samiullah, Abdul Hameed, Muhammad Adeel, Saddam Hussain and Abdul Hainan seek bail in FIR No, 108/2009 dated 28.08.2009 registered under Sections 302, 324, 34, 147, 148 and 149 PPC at Police Station Industrial Area, Quetta on the application of Abdul Qudus Son of Noor Muhammad by caste Langov, resident of Killi Allahabad, Quetta.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as disclosed in the FIR, are that on 28.08.2009 the complainant alongwith Muhammad Zaman, Muhammad Arif, Mehboob and Haji Ghulam Muhammad, all by caste Langov, were present at Killi Allahabad near Railway Line, at about 12 Noon Behram Khan Son of Fateh Muhammad, Jamil Ahmed Son of Behram Khan, Saeed Ahmed Son of Lal Muhammad armed with T.T pistol while Ustad Fazal Son of Muhammad Yousaf, Abdul Karim Son of Umar Khan, Naveed Ahmed Son of Nazir Ahmed, Ghous Bakhsh Son of Rasool Bakhsh by caste Zehri armed with Kalashnikove and Sajjad Son of Ali having an iron rod in his hand alongwith 5/6 unknown accused persons equipped with Dandas came, there, boarded in three vehicles. Ustad Fazal fired at Muhammad Zaman with Kalashnikove due to which he died on the spot. Naveed. Ahmed fired at Haji Ghulam Muhammad with Kalashnikov, who received serious injuries on his body; while Abdul Karim fired at Muhammad Arif with Kalashnikov, who also received serious injuries on his body and fell down; whereas, Mehbood was injured by the other accused persons; while the complainant 'was hit by Sajjad with iron rod due to which he received fracture on his left arm. On hearing firing Abdul Rasool Son of Mosa Khan, Nisar Ahmed Son of Malik Jan Muhammad, Muhammad Siddique Son of Malik Karam Khan and other persons came there thereafter the accused persons escaped leaving their two vehicles bearing Registration No, AAE- 913 Sherad and AAD-462 Corolla Model 1982 in red colour. The complainant alongwith other persons had taken the injured and dead bodies to Hospital. The motive as stated in the FIR was a dispute over a cricket match occurred on 27.08.2009 between Farid Ahmed Son of Malik Jan Muhammad and Asad Son of Wazir Khan and others with the sons of Ghous Bakhsh Zehri.
3. The applicants are not nominated in the FIR but they were implicated in the supplementary statements, which were recorded by the Police on 30.08.2009 and 01.09.2009.
4. In support of this bail application, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. They are not nominated in the FIR. He submits that Applicant No, 1 is a student, whose date of birth is 11.09.1993.
He, further submits that the applicants have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant in his supplementary statement recorded on 30.08.2009 and the injured Muhammad Arif and Nisar Ahmed, whose supplementary statement has been recorded on 01.09.2009. He further contended that no recovery of any sort have been affected from them, which makes the case of the applicants doubtful and of further inquiry. He further contended that no specific role have been assigned to the applicants in the supplementary statements. The learned counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on the cases reported as PLJ 1999 S.C. 727, 1997 P.Cr.L.J 494, 2000 P.Cr.L.J 1096, 1996 SCM R 1654, 1980 SCM R 784 and 1994 SCM R 2051.
5. On the other hand the learned Prosecution General and counsel for the complainant, who opposing the bail application, submitted that the applicants are nominated in the supplementary statement made by the complainant and two other eye-witnesses namely Nisar Ahmed and Arif (injured), which shows that the applicants were present on the spot and participated in the occurrence with their common intention and the applicants are not entitled to bail. The learned counsel for complainant has placed reliance on cases 1997 SCM R 445, 1990 SCM R 346 and 2002 P.Cr.L.J 1532.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution. It is an admitted fact that the applicants are not nominated in the FIR. It is also an admitted fact that the FIR was lodged on the basis of statement of complainant but latter on the complainant and two other witnesses implicated the applicants in the commission of offence through their supplementary statements recorded by the Investigating Officer on 30.08.2009 and 01.09.2009 but they have failed to explain as to how they came to know the names of the accused/applicants, while they know each-others prior to the occurrence. Since the applicants are not nominated in the FIR and they have been implicated in the supplementary statement by the complainant and two eye-witnesses, which fact also brings the case of applicants within the ambit of further inquiry.
7. For the time being except the supplementary statement of the complainant and eye-witnesses there is no other incriminating evidence on the record to prima facie connect the applicants with the commission of offence. So far as the question of vicarious liability of the applicants for the commission of offence is concerned, as per tentative assessment of the record, that is to be determined after recording the evidence of the prosecution. The applicants were arrested on 30.08.2009 and after completion of investigation they were sent, to the judicial custody but nothing have been recovered from the applicants during the investigation. After perusal of the police file, I find no incriminating evidence against the applicants to believe that they are connected with the commission of offence. The applicants cannot be detained in jail for indefinite period, who even otherwise, have succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.
8. For the foregoing' reasons the instant bail application is accepted and the applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are not designed to influence the course of trial in any manner.