Petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to the respondents by Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide order dated 15-2-1988 m the case registered against them and others under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. On 25-8-1987 at Police Station Kot Moman, District Sargodha.
2. According to F.I.R. The respondents who were armed with guns had fired shots at the complainant and other witnesses, which however, had not struck anyone.
3. Learned trial Judge granted bail to the respondents considering ineffective result of the firing and the facts of no empties having been recovered from the spot as well as non-recovery of guns from them. Their assertion of having cot participated in the occurrence was also taken into account.
4. Cancellation of bail is being sought on the ground that learned Additional Sessions Judge incorrectly observed that no crime empties were recovered from the spot. According to learned counsel for the petitioner nineteen .12 bore empties were recovered from the spot apart frond seven empties of .7 m.m. Rifle.
5. The case was registered on 25-8-1987 and the bail was granted io the respondents on 15-2-1988, i.e. About six months after the occurrence.
6. Another aspect urged for cancellation of bail of the respondents is that this is the third murder in sequence, between the parties.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one Bashir, a real brother of Munir deceased in this case, was murdered in the year 1980 and Munir deceased in this case, had lodged F.I.R. Against Bati, Aslam-respondent and four others. They were tried and convicted. They filed Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 1981 (which is still pending). All of them were released on bail on various dates, on different grounds. Bati was murdered in February, 1987 and a case was registered against Munir deceased of this case and others. In consequence to the murder of Bati, Munir accused of that case was murdered on 25-8-1987. Case regarding which stands registered against the respondents and others.
7. Bati is uncle of Adam respondent while the mother of Bashir respondent is real sister of mother of Bati. Thus; both of them are closely related to Bati for avenging the murder of whom, Munir deceased of this case was murdered.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed the cancellation of bail on the ground that the part assigned to the respondents does not call for interference with the discretion exercised by learned Additional Sessions Judge. According to him, even if the fact of recovery of .12 bore empties from the spot is correct, that would not make any difference to the merits of the case.
He has not challenged the history of three murders between the parties but has expressed inability to state about relationship of Bad with the respondents, Learned counsel submitted that even if the respondents related to Bati, that alone is not enough ground to cancel their bail.
9. Learned counsel for the State supports the petition for cancellation.
10. No doubt the respondents have not been assigned the specific role of having caused injuries either to the deceased or to any of the P.Ws. And so that fact goes in their favour. However, that alone is not sufficient ground to refuse cancellation of bail. In this case, three persons have been murdered, on different occasions. Two of the murder cases are pending trial while the appeal resulting from conviction in one case is also awaiting decision. The parties, it appears, are resorting to taking revenge by themselves without awaiting the course of law. Two persons have been done to death by the accused party. The respondents are closely related to Bati deceased, whose murder according to this case was ' avenged by the respondents alongwith other accused. Bail cannot be allowed to the accused to let them loose on the other party. It is not the case where allegation of participation of the respondents was found to be incorrect. I am sure, if the facts now brought out had been pointed out to the Additional Sessions Judge, he might also not have granted bail to the respondents.