SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Through this single order I intend to dispose of Crl. Misc. No.5520- B/2013 filed by Faisal Mahmood petitioner and Crl. Misc. No.5697-B/2013 filed by Pir Adnan Aziz, petitioner , as both are arising out of one and the same FIR.
2. By means of instant petition the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.848, dated 26.06.201 1, offence under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, P.P.C., Police Station Nawankot, Lahore, lodged on the complaint of Malik Mohsin Ashraf son of Muhammad Ashraf, complainant/respondent No.2.
3. Prosecution story in brief, as per, contents of the FIR, is that on 26.06.201 1 at 8:40 p.m. when the complainant along with his father , brother and Muhammad Hussain were sitting in the street outside their house Ali Adnan, Muhammad Farooq Raza, Faisal Mehmood and three unknown persons armed with different weapons while riding on motorcycles reached there. Ali Adnan made a fire shot, which injured father of the complainant.
Thereafter , Muhammad Farooq Raza also made a fire shot landing at Azhar alias Ajji; thereby inflicting injury on his person. Fire shot made by Faisal Mahmood inflicted injury On the person of Muhammad Hussain alias Aasi.
Thereafter , all the accused persons made indiscriminate firing due to which Amina sister of the complainant and a passerby woman also sustained injuries. Subsequently , father , brother and Muhammad Hussain succumbed to the injuries. Both the petitioners were brought in subsequently through supplemen tary statement for abetting the principal accused.
4. Learned counsel for Faisal Mehmood petitioner (Crl. Misc. No.5520-B/ 2013) while advancing his arguments submits that the petitioner was named in the crime report with specific role of making firing upon Muhammad Hussain deceased, however , due to plea of alibi taken by the petitioner , through supplementary statement he was brought in as an accused of abetment, hence in view of latest pronouncements of the country supplementary statement cannot be given credence and it is merely a statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Adds that even in the supplementary statement only suspicion has been shown against the petitioner . It is vehemently argued that during the course of investigation the complainant took divergent stances, which prima facie make the prosecution case against the petitioner one of further inquiry into his guilt. Learned counsel further submits that nothing was recovered during the course of investigation nevertheless the petitione r remained on physical remand for a reasonable period. In absence of any direct / cogent / confidence inspiring evidence, learned counsel urges, prosecution case against the petitioner squarely becomes one of further inquiry , therefore, as there is no plausible progress in trial, hence he is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail especially when Sohail alias Sohaila co- accused with similar allegation has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court in terms of order dated 03.05.2013 passed in Cr1. Misc. No.3722-B/2013. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the dictum of law laid down in the cases of Hafiz Khuda Bakhsh and another v. The State (PLD 1988 SC 413), Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and others (PLD 1996 Supreme Court 241) and Qabil v. The State (201 1 PCr .LJ 232).
Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Bhatti Advocate for Pir Adnan Aziz petitioner (Crl. Misc. No.5697-B/2013) while adopting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for Faisal Mahmood petitioner adds that earlier while disposing of Crl.
Misc. No.13412-B/2012 filed by co-accused Ch. Farooq Raza in terms of order dated 02.01.2013, direction was issued to the learned trial court to conclud e the trial within four months, however , despite lapse of stipulated period, there is no plausible progress in trial, therefore, by keeping the petitioners behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose as such they are entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
5. Contrarily , learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the contentions raised on behalf of both the petitioners with the submissions that nevertheless the petitioners were not named in the crime report, however , they were brought in through supplementary statement, which, is based upon an application dated 21.06.201 1 filed by Malik Muhammad Ashraf deceased father of the complainant to SHO, Police Station Nawan Kot, Lahore; wherein he had averred that on account of non- compromising the murder case of Babir Ashraf, deceased brother of the complainant, the petitioners had planned to get them murdered through hired assassin. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General submits that upon an application earlier filed by deceased father of the complainant, an inquiry was conducted into by Secretary , Prosecution Department, Government of the Punjab, who held the local police guilty; whereby SHO and DSP were placed under suspension for not bringing on record true facts, therefore, there is sufficient material available on record to saddle the petitioners with the liability . Learned counsel for the complainant urges that it is a triple murder case in which after submission of challan trial has commenced; wherein statement of one prosecution witness also stands recorded, therefore, any findings at this stage would prejudice the prosecution case, hence the petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed.
6. Arguments advanced from both sides have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
7. This is a case of its unique nature. In ordinary circumstances this case would have been squarely a case of further inquiry but there are certain aspects of the case, which cannot be lost sight off. During the course of arguments the Court was apprised that earlier the accused had committed the murder of Babir Ashraf son of Muhammad Ashraf deceased and in this regard case FIR No.383, dated 05.12.2005, offence under Sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C., read with Section 7 of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997, was registered at Police Station Hanjarwal; wherein one of the accused was sentenced to death whereas other accused namely Naveed, real brother of Faisal Mehmood/petitioner and bhateja of Pir Adnan Aziz/petitioner , is still P.Q. The accused persuaded Muhammad Ashraf to enter into compromise and on his refusal they not only committed murder of three innocent persons but also inflicted injuries on the person of Amina, sister of the complainant and daughter of Muhammad Ashraf deceased in a very tricky manner after hatching out a conspiracy , which is spelled out from the application, moved by Muhammad Ashraf, deceased father of Babir Ashraf deceased of an earlier case, on 21.06.201 1, five days prior to the occurrence to SHO concerned; wherein all the accused persons were nominated with their specific apprehension and the hatching of conspir acy with all its details. So much so Muhammad Ashraf, before his death, moved as many as thirty eight applications to different police officers; wherein apprehension to his life and other family members was agitated. This aspec t persuades the Court to decide the case in exceptional manner and while taking into consideration the inquiry carried out by Secretary Prosecution Department; wherein contents of application moved by Muhammad Ashraf deceased on 21.06.201 1 were found correct and the Inquiry Officer recommended for placing the concerned SHO and DSP under suspension, as well as, initiation of departmental action with recommendation of major penalty. When this aspect of the case is taken into consideration along with previous history of murders, this Court has no second cavil to its mind rather it seems that the apprehension shown in that application was subsequently materialized by the accused. Hence, prima facie there is sufficient incriminating material available on record to saddle the petitioners with the liabilit y during the course of trial. In a similar situation in the case of Ghulam Ahmed Chishti v. The State and another (2013 SCMR 385), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan had refused post-arrest bail.
8. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that Sohail alias Sohaila co-accused with similar role was admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court is concerned, perusal of order dated 03.05.2013 passed in Crl.
Misc. No.3722-B/2013 reveals that learned counsel for the complainant had opted not to oppose his bail petition, which was mainly made ground for extending him the concession of post-arrest bail, therefore, this circumstance lends no support to the case of the petitioners, at this stage.
9. It is also worth mentioning that in the instant case not only trial has commenced rather statement of one prosecution witnesses already stands recorded. Therefore, in view of dictum of law laid down in the cases of Gul Akbar v. The State (2007 SCMR 1798 ) and Muhammad Han!' v. Shafqat Nazir and others (2007 SCMR 1857 ), ordinarily superior courts do not indulge in the matter of auxiliary nature qua rendering findings on the plausibility or otherwise of the prosecution version.
10. As far as case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned , needless to mention that it is cordial principle of law that each criminal case has its own peculiar features and no hard and fast rule or criteria for general application can be laid down in this respect. Respectful reliance is placed on the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Haji Muhammad Nazir and others v. The State (2008 SCMR 807), The State v . Muhammad Yaqoob and others (2001 SCMR 308 ) and lmtiaz Ahmed v . The State (2001 SCMR 1334 ).
11. For the foregoing reasons this Court has not been persuaded to admit the petitioners to post-arrest bail.
Resultantly Crl. Misc. No.5520-B/2013 filed by Faisal Mahmood petitioner and Crl. Misc. No.5697- B/2013 filed by Pir Adnan Aziz, petitioner , being devoid of legal justification stand dismissed.