SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calling in question the order dated 31.08.2020 passed by learned Single Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 24303-B/2020 with prayer to grant post-arrest bail in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice.
2. As per allegation contained in the crime report, it is alleged that petitioners besid es three others nominated in the crime report trespassed into the house of complainant and gave beating to the inmates, as a consequent, Mst.
Hafeezan Bibi, Mst. Kaniz Fatima, Mst. Asmat Bibi, and Muhammad Abdullah sustained injuries while Mst.
Haleema Bibi succumbed to the injuries. On the statement of complainant Manzoor Hussain, the case bearing FIR No.68/2020 dated 28.02.2020 under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 147, 149, P.P.C. was registered with Police Station Ata Shahe ed, District Sargodha. As per accusation levelled against the petitioners are concerned, Noor Sultan while armed with Sota gave three successive blows to Mst. Haleema Bibi, Hafeezan Bibi and complainant with his respective weapon whereas Zafar Ali gave hatchet blow from wrong side to Mst.
Asmet Bibi and Kaniz Bibi. The motive behind the occurrence is that there was a scuffle amongst women folk in the early party of the day
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioners are falsely roped in this case against the actual facts and circumstances. Contends that the prosecution has thrown a wider net while involving all male members of the accused family . Contends that the accusation against the petitioners do not attract prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Further contends that use of conventional weapon further reduced the gravity of the accusation against the petitioners. Lastly argued that investigation of the case is complete, petitioners are no more required for further investigation, they are behind the bar since eight months and there is no likelihood of early disposal of the case. In view of facts and circumstances prayed for grant of post arrest bail to the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned Law Officer that it is a case of highhandedness shown by the accused party while trespassing into the house of the complainant. Contends that it is an admitted fact that the accused persons caused injuries to four PWs whereas one woman folk was done to death. Contends that the whole occurrence has taken place inside the house as such they are liable for trespassing into house. Lastly argued that trial has commenced and statements of two prosecution witnesses have already been recorded, therefore, any findings at this stage would certainly prejudice the case of the prosecution.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Law Of ficer and gone through the record.
The instant occurrence has taken place on 28.02.2020 at 6.15 p.m. while the matter was reported to the police within 2.15 hours whereas inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and police station is 16 kilometers.
Promptness in reporting the matter to the police reflect that there is no chance of any consultation or deliberation at the part of prosecution. Otherwise it is an admitted fact that the occurrence has taken place inside the house of complainant wherein one female lost her life whereas four persons sustained injuries including three women folk.
As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is case of individual liability and each of the petitioner is to be treated according to the role ascribed, it is worth mentioning that in criminal matters each case has its own facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the accused persons five in number in furtherance of their common object trespassed into the house of complainant; as a consequence instant occurrence has taken place.
The accused persons nominated in the crime report had a definite motive to commit the crime alleged against them, while joining hands with each other , hence, any finding qua role of each accused at this stage by this Court would certainly prejudice the case, when it is stated at bar that the trial has commenced and two prosecution witnesses has already been recorded by the learned trial court. In such like situation, this Court has already enunciated the principles in (1980 SCMR 203) "Muhammad Sadik and others v. The State" (1990 SCMR 307), "Allah Ditta and others v. The State" and (2007 SCMR 1793) "Gul Akbar v. The State". The observation made in 2007 SCMR 1793 is as under:- "It is to be noted that challan of the case has already been submitted, trial commenced and case is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence for 26.07.2007. The petitioner may move an application for bail before the learned trial court. We are deliberately withholding our comments on merits of the case to avoid the possibility of causing prejudice against any party . By now it is well settled that "it is not the practice of the Supreme Court to unduly intervene in bail matters, which should ordinarily be left to the discretion of the courts inquiring into the guilt of the accused persons. The discretion has of course, to be exercised on sound judicial principles."
6. In view of the facts and circumstances , narrated above and taking into consideration the progress made by the learned trial court' qua recording of prosecution evidence is suf ficient to decline leave sought for As a consequence, the instant petition is dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.