' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Imran Faisal Lumberdar and Muhammad- Afzal petitioners along with their co-accused all armed with fire-arms, attacked the complainant party at 1-00 p.m. On 21-7- 2010, sprayed volleys of bullets upon them and thereby murdered Zaheer, the paternal nephew of the complainant, besides badly wounding the complainant; on his own lalkara accused Naeem, fired straight through his weapon which landed at the chest of Zaheer deceased whereas accused Imran Faisal Lumberdar (petitioner) and his co-accused Muhammad Afzal (petitioner) authored firearm injuries on the left thigh of the complainant with their respective weapons; the complainant was also fired at by the co-accused of the petitioners, Waseem Abbas and Sohail; the motive behind the occurrence pertained to a dispute over a piece of land/plot.
2. Muhammad Asghar complainant was medically examined at 1-20 p.m. On 21-7-2010 and his MLR shows two entry wounds and two exit wounds on the lower part of his left thigh.
3. The postmortem examination report of. Zaheer Ashraf deceased reveals one firearm injury on the left upper chest, below the left clavicle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have not caused any injury to the deceased and they have been merely saddled with the liability of causing fire-arm injuries to the complainant; the petitioners may not be held vicariously liable for the murder of Zaheer deceased as their case is easily separable from the case of their co-accused who caused fatal injury to the deceased; the medical evidence in respect of the injured P.W. Is inconsistent with the eye-witness account as both the entry wounds show two firearm apertures each; the injuries attributed to the petitioners are simple in nature and fall within the definition of Ghayr-Jaifah-Mutulahimah; the motive part of the occurrence is not relatable to the petitioners who were arrested in this case on 28-7-2010 and they continuously stand incarcerated albeit, they are not required for further investigation.
5.The bail plea of the petitioners has been strenuously opposed by learned Deputy Prosecutor General, ably assisted by learned counsel for the complainant. It is contended by the former that the petitioners had actively participated in the occurrence and they with the community of intention, had effectively fired at the complainant; the medical evidence fully corroborates the eye-witness account; the injured-complainant and the other eye-witnesses still support the prosecution version; the case of the petitioners does not call for further inquiry into their guilt, so they may not be released on bail.
6. The complainant has alleged in the F.I.R. That he received a telephonic call from accused Naeem at 12-00 noon on the fateful day that he had forcibly occupied a piece of land belonging to the complainant, whereupon he along with his paternal nephew Zaheei Ashraf, Shahid. Nadeem and Karam Din reached the spot to have a view of the situation. They had hardly alighted their car when accused Naeem made a loud exhortation and within no time, fired straight into the chest of Zaheer who, being hit by the missile fell down and died instantaneously. The petitioners Imran Faisal Lumberdar and Muhammad Afzal also did not lag behind and they targeted Muhammad Asghar complainant with their weapons and authored firearm injuries on his left thigh. It was sheer good luck of the injured that the bullets pierced across his body without perforating any major vessel or causing any bony lesion. There cannot be two opinions that the petitioners had community of intention with their co-accused and had launched a premeditated attack upon the complainant side. They, by an act of roguishness actively participated in the occurrence and not only vicariously contributed towards the murder of Zaheer Ashraf deceased but also almost killed the complainant. The petitioners after having been arrested led to the recovery of pistols on 6-8- 2010. The investigation ended up in challenging of all the accused, including the petitioners.
7. The earlier bail application of the petitioners had been dismissed as withdrawn by this court on 24-11-2010 when it had already been B discussed at some length. There are reasonable grounds to believe that the charge against the petitioners is prima facie believable and there case B does not constitute need for further inquiry into their guilt.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to allow this petition, which, accordingly stands dismissed.