An F. I. R. No. 11 dated 27th March, 1981 for the offences under section 1481302/149/109, P. P. C. Was lodged against the petitioner and 11 others at Police Station Katha Sagral, District Sargodha at the instance of Ghulam Qadir son of Sher Muhammad. It was alleged that on 27th March, 1981 at 8-00 p. m. The petitioner alongwith others armed with -12 bore guns appeared on the scene when Muhammad lqbal (deceased) nephew of the complainant' was sitting at the Dera alongwtth Muhammad Sher son of Fateh Muhammad who bad come there and were talking with each other.
Mian Muhammad co-accused raised a lalkara that they had come and simultaneously fired at Muhammad Iqbal deceased hitting him on the right shoulder who fell down. The witness took shelter behind the door of the room of the Dera. In the meanwhile the other accused took to firing which continued for some time and thereafter all the accused decamped. The deceased died at the spot.
2. During the post-mortem examination the deceased was found to have suffered a lacerated wound 1----- x 1----- x deep on right delta region ; a lacerated wound 2----- X 1--- x deep right side of the chest below arm-pit ; two lacerated wounds ----- x 3--- x deep, 1/3" x 1/3--- x deep near each other on the inner side of right upper arm ; and a lacerated wound 1/3--- x 1/3" x deep on the left behind side of the chest at lower part. In the opinion of the doctor the death occurred due to haemorrhage (internal and external). Injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 1 was the wound of entrance and injury No. 2 was its exit wound. Similarly, injury No. 3 was wound of entrance and No. 4, its exit wound.
3. The petitioner is alleged to have led to the recovery of a Carbine.
4. Muhammad Zaman, Umar Hayat, Muhammad Akhtar, Ramzan Ali, Muhammad Afzal and Haq Nawaz were bailed out by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha.
5. The petitioner had moved separately for bail which was refused to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide his order dated 5th July, 1981, hence this petition.
6. Amin Hussain, Muhammad Hayat and Falaksher co-accused have already been released on bail by my learned brother Mazharul Haq, J. Vide his order dated 16th February, 1982 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 202/B-82.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the post-mortem report by maintaining that in fact there are two wounds of entry and two wounds of exit. There are in all two fire shots out of which one has been attributed to Mian Muhammad co-accused. The wounds of entrance are so situated that these can be regarded as having been caused by one shot. A large number of persons have been said to have participated in the commission of the crime. Now as to who fired the second shot if the injuries are to be treated as having been caused separately, the matter falls for further inquiry. The petitioner has no concern with the motive. The learned counsel has also contended that as a matter of course according to the allegations there ought to have been, if at all, the recovery of ' 12 bore gun rather than the-Carbine as is alleged. The petitioner has been falsely implicated on the basis of party-faction. It has been urged by the learned counsel that the petitioner is entitled to bail because his case is not distinguishable from those who have been granted bail by this Court and the learned Sessions Judge. He has further men--tioned that the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up since a year and the trial is not in sight.
8. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this bail on the ground that the name of the petitioner is mentioned in the F. I. R. As one of the assailants. He is alleged to have been armed with gun and taken to firing and that a Carbine has been recovered at his instance. In fact all the accused participated. If one person has been named in the F. I. R. As having been the author of one injury, the other injury can be attributed to any of the participants and since they were acting in furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, they are equally liable. The incident is the result of enmity already existing between the parties, therefore, the motive is fully established. A direc--tion for earlier disposal of the main case will suffice rather than to bail out the petitioner when the challan has already been submitted to the Court.
9. Amin Hussain, Muhammad Hayat and Falaksher co-accused were bailed out by this Court on the grounds firstly, that there were two wounds of entry on the right side involving the tight upper arm and the chest below the armpit, and the second wound of exit was found in the left flank. The wounds of entry on the shoulder and the chest were so close to each other that they could be the result of a single shot ; secondly, that they had not been attributed any shot fired at the deceased and the solitary shot fired was attributed to Mian Muhammad accused and thirdly, that mere recovery of unlicensed arm from them was not enough to refuse bail to those accused. However, the case of the present petitioner is on a par with that of the abovesaid persons who have been released on bail by this Court and it has always been regarded as a ground for bail-where the case of the accused praying for bail is not distinguishable from those who have been granted bail.
In the circumstances, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty-five thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Jauharabad. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.