ORDER IMAM BUX BALOCH, J.---While hearing bail application moved on behalf of applicant/accused Tarique Ali Chandio, this Court issued show-cause notice to respondents vide order dated 20-9-2010.
2. The prosecution case, in precise, is that complainant is having agricultural land near the lands of Tarique Ali Chandio who used to convey the message to the complainant that he should sell out his land to him as the complainant' has built his houses on land and developed fish pond to which said Tarique became greedy. On 19-6-2008 complainant along with Haji Muhammad Essa, Muhammad Moosa both sons of Muhammad Ramzan, Haji Mumtaz son of Muhammad Ali, Ghulam Hussain son of Abdul Rasheed, Ghulam Abbas son of Ghulam Nabi, Rafique Ahmed son of Ghulam Hussain, Buxial son of Muhammad Ali were present in their houses when at about 9-00 p.M.
Accused have attacked upon the houses of the complainant party and fired from Rocket Launchers, Kalashnikovs, Rifle and guns. The firing continued up to morning of 20-6-2008. The complainant party saw and identified accused Tarique, Shafique with K.Ks, Rashid Ali with Rocket Launcher, Saleem alias Aslam with K.K all the four sons of Muhammad Saleh, Sajid son of Gulzar with G-3 Rifle, Jinsar and Manzoor both sons of Niaz alias Niazoo, Niaz alias Niazoo with K.Ks, Mehar with G.3. Rifle both sons of Illahi Bux Sikandar son of Ramzan with Repeater Gun, Gulab, Niaz, Mumtaz son of Ghulam Ali, Jinsar, Hassan Ali all armed with K.Ks, Sudheer with Repeater Gun all the four sons of Shahan, Fida Hussain son of Moula Bux with gun, Muhammad Saleh son of Muhammad Paryal with gun all by caste Chandio no village Punhoon Khan Chandio, Akbtar alias Akoo son of Niaz Hussain Chandio with gun, Haji Balo Chandio with gun, Shaman son of Hidayatu'lah with K.K all by caste Chandio, no village Jani Chandio, Nabi Dad alias Dado son of Mohabat with K.K, Abdul Latif son of Gullan with K.K all by caste Khaskheli no village Punhoon Chandio, Riyaz son of Sikandar Khaskheli no Dodapur with K.K, Sadaruddin alias Sadar son of Dadan alias Dado, Aamir, Imran both sons of Sadaruddin alias Sadar by caste Sehol, no village Mahi Sehol armed with K.Ks, all the accused fired upon the complainant party. At about 10-30 a.M. Ammunition of the complainant party were finished, therefore, all the accused entered in the houses of the complainant party.
Accused Jinsar, Shafique, Nabi Dad fired at Ghulam Abbas who expired at the spot, accused Akbar alias Akoo, Sadaruddin Sehol fired at Rafique who also expired at the spot accused Saleem, Aamir, Niaz alias Niazoo fired upon Buxial who also expired. Accused Tarique, Manzoor and Sajid dragged Ghulam Hussain out of the house and at some distance committed his murder. Accused Muhammad Saleh had instigated all the accused to rob the weapons, household articles and set on fire the houses of the complainant party. Accused Mumtaz had taken away the licensed Rifle of deceased Ghulam Hussain and other co-accused had robbed licensed weapons of the complainant party and taken away all the household articles and cattle with them. Accused Riyaz Khaskheli set on fire the houses of the complainant party and after making aerial firing all the accused left the scene of offence.
3. Sikandar Ali, brother of complainant informed the police on mobile phone. Police came and took the dead bodies and after conducting postmortem upon the dead bodies of deceased, the same were handed over to the complainant party. The complainant after completing funeral ceremony went to police station and lodged the F.I.R. On 21-6-2008.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that on 29-9-2010 he did not press bail application of. Accused Tarique Ali which was dismissed as such. After perusing the order dated 6-3-2009 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu this Court has issued show-cause notice to the respondents that why their by the trial Court may not be cancelled.
5. Heard Mr. Azizullah M. Buriro, learned counsel for the respondents who contended that there are general allegations against the respondents and no specific role has been attributed against them in the F.I.R. He contended that the trial Court has rightly granted bail to the respondents after going through the material available on record. He placed reliance on the case of Mazhar Mahmood v.
Basit and another 1997 SCM R 915 and case of Jaffar and others v. The State 1980 SCM R 784 and also placed on record certified copy of statement of process server HC Noor Mohammad recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehar where the case is pending and states that the P. Was are absconders as they have committed murder of respondent party.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, learned State counsel contended that the names of respondents did appear in the F.I.R. With specific role. All the respondents along with co-accused have formed an unlawful assembly and have attacked upon the houses of the complainant party with intention to commit Qatl-e-Amd of complainant party. He further states that they have continuously made firing upon the houses of the complainant till the ammunition of the complainant party were finished. After that, they had entered into the houses of the complainant party and robbed licensed weapons, household articles and cattle and set on fire the houses of the complainant party. He further stated that the accused party was armed with Rocket Launchers, Kalashnikovs, Rifles and guns and in such case sections 148, 149, P.P.C. Is much applicable and they are vicariously liable for the commission of the crime. He further contended that the respondents along with co-accused have committed a heinous offence and they does not deserve the leniency of bail and that the learned trial Court has wrongly granted bail to the respondents. He further contended that empties of Rocket Launcher, bullets of G.3 Rifle. KKs and cartridges has been recovered from the place of incident.
7. I have considered' the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the relevant record. Admittedly, the respondents along with co-accused armed with lethal weapons have attacked upon the houses of the complainant party as the complainant has refused to sell out his agricultural land and fish farm to co-accused Tarique Chandio. The memo of place of incident shows that the houses of the complainant party were set on fire and empties of Rocket Launcher, G-3 Rifle, Kalashnikovs and cartridges of Guns have been recovered from the place of incident. The memo of place of incident further reveals that the houses of the complainant party were set on fire and the investigating officer has taken ashes from the place of incident. In such circumstances, where the accused formed an unlawful assembly equipped themselves with deadly weapons and attacked upon the houses of the complainant and continued the firing upon them till next morning where the ammunition of complainant party finished and they robbed the household articles, cattle and weapons of the complainant party and set houses on fire and that with their common object, all the accused have committed a heinous offence. It is also noted that four persons have lost their lives. All the accused in furtherance of common intention have attacked upon the horses of the, complainant party. In such circumstances, the accused are not entitled for the concession of bail as granted by the learned trial Court. In this regard reference cane made to the case of Naseem Malik v. State 2004 SCM R 283, wherein it was held as under:-- ----S.497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419/420/468/417/477-Al 109---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Bail cancellation of--Accused was A specifically named and comprehensively described in the F.I.R. As one of the conspirators and preparatory of the crime-- Co accused after his collaborators whose statement could be validly taken into consideration which deciding such matters---Accused had approached the Special Court for bail while his bail petition was pending disposal before the Supreme Court and he withheld this fact from the Special Court---Special Court had also ignored the finding of the High Court that the accused was not entitled to grant of bail even on merits of the case and in granting bail to him it had acted contrary to the conclusions reached by High Court and that too on the basis of the stance taken by the Investigating Officer which was seriously questionable--Accused had secured his release on bail by grossly abusing the process of Court and he could not be permitted to enjoy the fruits of such an ill-gotten gain---Bail allowed to accused was cancelled accordingly."
8. The learned trial Court has not considered the true perspective of the case and only by saying that there are general allegations against the respondents being not considered the fact that all the accused armed themselves had attacked upon the complainant party from 9-00 p.M. To 10-30 a.M. On the next day and committed murder of four innocent persons and set the houses on fire and robbed articles along with weapons and cattle. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. In the above circumstances to the respondents is hereby cancelled. One accused Mehar is in custody. The other respondents be taken into custody and be remanded to jail.
10. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the trial Court would not be influenced by such observations at the time of deciding the case finally.