1. This bail application has been moved on behalf of Murid Hussain and Khadim Hussain. The two petitioners are accused in a murder case along with 14 others.
2. F.I.R. Pertaining to the incident was lodged on 19-8-1985 at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala in which Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Sharif was killed.
3. So far as Murid Hussain is concerned he has moved this application for the first time. But Khadim Hussain before this moved two other applications (Criminal Miscellaneous 607/B of 1986) and 1390/B of 1986). On both occasions counsel withdrew the application. So, this is the third application. Counsel now wants to contest on merits.
4. Notice was issued by me on 18-10-1986.
5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. On behalf of Murid Hussain counsel contended that though he was alleged to be armed with Chhuri yet injury on the person of the deceased was found by the medical board to be inflicted by blunt weapon.
6. Counsel further submitted that the investigation changed many hands. At one stage Murid Hussain was found innocent by one Investigating Agency.
7. So far as Khadim Hussain is concerned, learned counsel argued that he is an Advocate. Allegation against him is that ammunition was found in his car in which the other accused after the incident escaped.
8. Learned counsel submitted that it is not the prosecution case that he fired the gun or the deceased received any injury by fire-arm.
9. Mr. Farooq Bedar, A.A.-G. Opposed the bail of both the petitioners. So far as the former is concerned he contended that he has been named in the F.I.R. Specific role has been attributed to him. He was armed with Chhuri. In the post-mortem report the injury was found to be inflicted with sharp- edged weapon. Later on if the report is contrary it does not establish the innocence of the petitioner.
10. With regard to Khadim Hussain he submitted that no overt act has been attributed to him. But this would not exempt him from criminal liability.
11. The police officer submitted that the investigation is complete. Challan has been submitted.
12. I do not think that police needs the person of any one of the two petitioners. However, Murid Hussain was armed with Chhuri and overt act has been attributed to him. He is, therefore, not entitled to the concession of bail. Bail application qua him is dismissed.
13. Khadim Hussain is an Advocate. He remained in police custody for a long time as well as in jail. No specific part has been attributed to him. The question to the extent of his application needs further enquiry. I allow him bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C., Gujranwala.