Petitioner Amer alias Pawa, Hafiz Muhammad Asif and Ijaz Beg alias, Judge have applied for bail by means of three separate applications. Since these petitions arise out of the same F.I.R, therefore, these petitions will be taken up together and decided by this order. According to the allegation levelled in the F.I.R lodged by Muhammad Rafiq father of Tariq Javed, deceased, the first informant had a sweetmeat shop. His son had a shop nearby where he sold the chicken. Six/seven days before the registration of the case a customer came to the shop of his son Muhammad Shafiq when Hafiz Muhammad Asif and Liaquat, accused in the case, misbehaved, whereupon Muhammad Shafiq son of the first informant slapped each of them on which they left the shop while threatening the son of the first informant. On 20-4-1988, at about 2-30 at night, the first informant alongwith his sons Muhammad Shafiq, Tariq Javed and Humayun Rafiq were present in his shop of sweetmeat when Hafiz Muhammad Asif, Amer alias Pawa and Ijaz Beg petitioners alongwith their co-accused armed with revolvers, raised a lalkara that they had come to teach Muhammad Shafiq a lesson, and simultaneously started firing with their revolvers. Tariq Javed, son of the first informant, was sitting at the shop when Mirza Azhar, co-accused of the petitioner, fired his revolver hitting Tariq Javed on his chest. The other eye--witnesses hid themselves behind an almirah. The petitioner alongwith co-accused kept on firing ineffectively. After the commission of offence, the petitioners ran away from the scene of occurrence.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that tile rule ascribed to the petitioners is of ineffective firing. Contends that if the petitioners had the intention to commit the murder, Muhammad Shafiiq should have been made the main target against whom motive has been alleged. It is argued that said Muhammad Shafiq was available at the shop but no effort whatsoever was made to cause any harm to him which clearly indicated that the occurrence had not taken place as alleged by the prosecution. Submits that the occurrence took place at 2-30 at night and at that time the witnesses had no business to be present at their shop. Submits that it indicates that the eye-witnesses had not witnessed the occurrence but have become witnesses with a view to falsely implicate the petitioners.
3. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant. According to him the petitioners were named in the F.I.R. They were armed with revolvers and also resorted to indiscriminate firing. Argues that the petitioners were desperate persons and if allowed bail they would misuse the concession.
4. I have heard learned counsel at length and perused the record. The motive in the instant case was directed against Muhammad Shafiq brother of the first informant but there is no allegation that either the petitioners or their co---accused made any attempt to cause some harm to him.
There is some force in the arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners that had the motive part of the story been correct some efforts by the petitioners or their co-accused should have been made to cause any harm to Muhammad Shafiq PW. The occurrence took place at 2-30 at night when ordinarily the sweetmeat shops are not open. If the contention of learned counsel for the complainant be accepted that the shops were open then the prosecution should have produced some witnesses as well' because the occurrence took place in a thorough fare. According to the F.I.R. The petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased; they only resorted to ineffective firing.
It is not even, clear that the firing was directed against whom. It is strange to note that in a small shop the deceased alongwith his father and two brothers were sitting when the petitioners alongwith their co-accused resorted to indiscriminate firing yet, except for the deceased, no other person was injured. As far as the deceased in concerned, he received one fire shot from the co- accused of the petitioner which resulted in his death.
5. For what has been discussed above, I feel that the case of the petitioners is of further inquiry which entitles them to the concession of bail. Therefore, they are allowed bail provided they furnish security in the sum of Rs.30,000 each, with two sureties each, in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Gujranwala.
S.A./A-783/L