' SALMAN HAMID, J.---Hayat Ghani, son of Shahnawaz Khan, (Applicant) has preferred this bail application after denial of bail to him by the III-Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi in Sessions Case No,538 of 2011 (State v. Hayat Ghani), arising from F.I.R. No,331 of 2011 of Police Station Sachal, registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 324 Pakistan Penal Code.
2. Briefly, the facts as determined from the F.I.R. Seems to be that on 29-5-2011, Abdul Rasheed, son of Sachal, (Complainant) along with other people was busy in raising a grill for the purposes of saving property from robbers when circa 2040 hours Abdullah and Gul Badin, both sons of Sarwar Khan, Rab Nawaz and Ibrahim, sons of Shah Nawaz, Hayat Ghani, Moulvi Zakir Pili, Saghir Munawar Khan, Hyder and 5/6 other unknown persons, all duly armed with weapons came and started indiscriminate firing with the result that Sultan, son of Muhammad Saleh died whereas Liaquat Ali, son of Gul Hassan, Mehboob, son of Rasool Bux, Sultan Magsi, son of Aman and a boy Muhammad Ibrar, son of Safarish Ali sustained bullet injuries which was made the subject-matter of the F.I.R.
3. In the above background, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been assigned no specific role and it is not clear from the contents of the F.I.R. As to from whose weapon Sultan died and others received injuries and it.Is also not clear as to which of the accused was armed with which of the weapon. It was also mentioned that the allegations are vague. Therefore, at best a case of vicarious-liability is made out which requires further inquiry. It was also mentioned that there were blatant discrepancies in the police papers inasmuch as that arrest memo and inquest report and site sketch of the incident differ in facts substantially. Therefore it was asserted that a case of further inquiry having been made out, the applicant be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned A.P.-G. Vehemently opposed and resisted the bail application. It was mentioned that the F.I.R. Clearly shows that all the accused, duly armed with weapons came and all of them started indiscriminate firing with the result that Sultan Ahmed died and other persons received injuries which fact is undisputed. It was also mentioned that from the possession of the applicant .12 bore repeater Shotgun No . HAC-6568 was received along with .30 bore SHAC-6138 with magazine together with eleven .12 bore crime empties, six .30 bore crime empties and five 7.62 mm bore empties and that according to FSL report, .12 bore crime empties were fired from .12 bore repeater Shotgun No,HAC-6568 and that two .30 bore crime empties were also fired from .30 bore Pistol No,SHAC-6138 and the result thereof is positive and such recovery and FSL, it clearly shows and connects the applicant from commission of offences for which he is charged It was also mentioned that first of all there was no material discrepancies in the police papers/ documents' as attempted to be highlighted by the learned counsel for the applicant and even if there were some discrepancies, the same were because of police irregularities and the same would not vitiate the case of the prosecution, particularly at the bail stage at which time deeper appreciation of evidence is not required. It was also mentioned that in 161 Cr.P.C. Statements all the four injured have implicated the applicant which again goes to prove that the applicant was involved in the commission of offence for which he is charged.
5. Mr. Altaf Hussain, learned counsel for the complainant adopted the arguments of the learned A.P.-G. But added that the applicant is not at all interested in proceeding with the case before the trial court and produced diaries which were as many as 17 in number from 4-7-2011 up to 14-11-2011.
It was asserted that the applicant is not entitled to bail and the same be dismissed.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is an admitted position not disputed by anyone, including the counsel for the applicant that all the accused made indiscriminate firing and that all of them were armed with weapons with the result that a fatality took place and firearm injuries had been caused to four persons. It has also come on record that weapons were recovered from the possession of the applicant which was not disputed or denied by the applicant but it was only asserted that recovery was made not in accordance with law and therefore it cannot be relied upon. It also came on record that along with the recovery of weapons empties were also recovered and upon examination and test by FSL, it came that the same had been fired from the weapons recovered from the applicant.
7. Looking at the above fact it becomes abundantly clear that applicant along with other accused formed an unlawful assembly whereby a murder had been caused and four persons were also injured. Therefore at this stage it is prima facie that the applicant is connected with the offence for which he is charged. Under the circumstances, and in view of the fact that sufficient material is available with the prosecution for the involvement of the applicant in the crime, I am not inclined to exercise discretion and admit the applicant to bail, which is hereby dismissed.
8. The various precedents cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are either not applicable in the case or clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in such cases either a case of further inquiry had been made out or that the accused therein were not directly connected with the offence for which they were charged, which is not the case in hand. It has come on record that the applicant is connected with the offence for which he is charged.
9. Needless to mention that the outcome of the result of this bail application shall not affect the trial of the case in any manner whatsoever.