' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---The applicants have preferred bail applications in Crime No.56 of 2011, lodged at Police Station, Wasti Jewan Shah, under sections 324, 353, 224, 225, 148, 149, P.P.C.
And section 7 A.T.A. Since both the aforesaid bail applications are arising from the same crime number, therefore, we intend to dispose of both bail applications by this common order.
2. All the applicants moved bail applications in the trial court, but their bail applications were dismissed vide common order dated 17-9-2011.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 30-7-2011, SIP Abdullah Awan, S.H.O., Police Station Wasti Jiwan Shah on behalf of State lodged F.I.R. That he was present at Police Station where he received spy information that in Crime No. 24 of 2007, absconder accused Abdul Ghani and in Crime No.31 of 2006, absconder Sodho are sitting in the otaq of Bungle Seelro. After receiving this spy information, complainant along with other police officials proceeded towards pointed place and when they reached at the otaq, they saw Abdul Ghani, Sodho, Nazir and three or four more unidentified persons. Abdul Ghani and Sodho (applicants in Criminal Bail Application No. 891 of 2011) were found empty-handed, while remaining accused were armed with KKs. After seeing police party, they tried to escape away, however, police apprehended accused Sodho and Abdul Ghani (applicants), who raised cries and on their cries, 25 accused/culprits including Sheroo (applicant in Criminal Bail Application No. 873 of 2011) armed with weapons reached there and asked the police party to release apprehended accused, but on refusal, accused Fatoo Seelro, Sattaro Seelro, Bajhi Seelro, Hameed Seelro, Bhagiyo Seelro caused lathi and hatchet blows to H.C.Talib Hussain and P.C.
Muhammad Ali. Thereafter, apprehended accused made their escape good, on which police party took the position. Thereafter, armed persons made straight fires upon the police with intention to commit their murder and in their defence, police also started firing which continued about half an hour. Meanwhile, one fire was shot to P.C. Muhammad Ali and accused. Janib was also injured. All the accused persons succeeded to escape by taking the advantage of jungle. Thereafter, complainant and other police officials found that H.C. Talib Hussain sustained six injuries and P.C.
Muhammad Ali sustained fire arm injuries on his right elbow, one injury on his left hand and one injury on his head.
4. Mr. Shahani, the learned counsel for the applicant Sheroo argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the crime in question and as a matter of fact he has nothing to do with the other accused persons, named in the F.I.R. He= Naha argued that in the FIR., though the names of 25 persons are mentioned with their parentage, but complainant has failed to mention any specific role of the applicant and if the contents of the F.I.R.- are considered to be true, even then there is no specific role of the applicant except the vague and general allegations. He further argued that main allegation for causing lathi and hatchet blows to police: officials are against different accused persons and not against the applicant and it, is further alleged that armed persons made straight fires upon the police with intention to commit their murder and during this encounter, one fire hit to P.C. Muhammad Ali, but nothing is mentioned that which of the accused has Caused such fire arm injury to P.C. Muhammad Ali.
5. Mr. Malano, the learned counsel for applicants Abdul Ghani and Sodho argued that no role of the applicants has been assigned in the F.I.R. Except that they were present in the otaq of Bungle Seelro and it is an admitted position that both the applicants were found in the otaq with empty-handed.
The only allegation against the applicants is that they were apprehended by the police and on their cries, 25 persons came to rescue and it is nowhere said that the applicants had caused any injury to H.C. Talib Hussain or P.C. Muhammad Ali. He further argued that encounter took place in the day time on thickly populated area but police has failed to associate any private person as independent witness though place of incident was a common way.
6. The learned D.P.-G. For the State argued that the applicants are absconders in other crimes They have also caused injuries to the police officials. He further argued that 43 empties of. KK, 55 of G.3 rifle were fired from police side and 66 empties of KK were recovered which were fired from accused side. He further argued that all the accused persons restrained the police party from discharging their lawful duties, therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail.
7. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel. So far as the case of applicant Sheroo is concerned, we have observed that in the F.I.R., complainant hasT mentioned names of 25 persons including the applicant with their parentage and even with the names of some accused, complainant has also mentioned their caste. Common prudence does not accept that in the case of encounter in which firing is alleged from both sides, names of 25 persons along with their parentage, caste and kind of weapons can be memorized by a person and mentioned it in the F.I.R.
Without proper consultation and deliberation. Another important aspect is that there is no specific or exact allegation has been made against applicant Sheroo in the P.I.R. Except that he along with other 24 accused persons came to rescue Abdul Ghani and Sodho. Even allegation for causing hatchet and lathi blows is against other accused persons and not against him. In the F.I.R. Vague allegation has been levelled that armed persons made straight fires upon police party which is a general allegation in which no role of applicant can be assumed warranting him guilty for rejection of bail.
8. So far as the case of applicants Abdul Ghani and Sodho is concerned, it is clear that both were found empty-handed while sitting in the otaq. No allegation has been levelled against them which may suffice to hold that they are guilty of causing any lathi or hatchet blows or fire arm injury to any police official. It is reiterated that names of persons who had caused injuries to police official are mentioned in the F.I.R., but no injury has been caused by the applicants. Essential pre requisite for grant of bail by virtue of subsection (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. That court must be satisfied on the basis of opinion expressed by police or the material placed before it that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused iS not guilty of offence punishable with death, or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years. The applicants are charged for offences under sections 324, 353, 224, 225, 148 and 149, P.P.C, out of which sections 353, 224, 225 and 148 P.P.C. Are bailable. So far as section 324, P.P.C. Is concerned, at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds exist in our mind to hold that the applicants have committed any offence under section 324, P.P.C.
Next question relates to vicarious liability for which no definite conclusion can be arrived at this stage whether the applicants are vicariously liable or not. Similarly, question of common intention is to be decided by the trial court for which deeper appreciation of evidence is required. It is well- settled that even at the stage of bail, benefit of doubt may be extended to the accused. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we have reached to the conclusion that the case of the applicants falls within the phrase of further inquiry and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants are not guilty of offence punishable with death, or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years.
9. For the foregoing reasons, applicants are granted bail subject to their furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000 (Rupees two lacs) each with PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The above findings are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of the prosecution. The bail application are disposed of accordingly.