1. This application for bail has been presented on behalf of Hukumuddin, who is involved in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at Qaidabad Police Station, Karachi (East). The prosecution case, as per F.I.R.; is that the accused Islamuddin had to pay some money to Muhammad Abid, the son of the deceased Ulfat Bibi, on account of supply of milk. It is stated in the F.I.R. That the husband of the deceased had earlier gone to the house of accused Islamuddin for the recovery of the amount. He was given fist blows and slaps by Islamuddin, accused. Coming to know of this fact, his wife Ulfat Bibi went to the house of Islamuddin accused to protest against it. When she reached the door of Islamuddin, his brothers Hukumuddin alias Chiri Pehalwan (the applicant above named) and Islam Pehalwan came out with revolvers and pistols m their hands. Islamuddin fired three shots at deceased Ulfat Bibi with intention to kill her. The bullets hit her on left leg, left side of chest and one on the abdomen near the umbicus. The lady expired on the spot and fell down, when the accused Ilukumuddin and Islamuddin also fired two shots each. The bail application was presented before the learned Sessions Judge firstly for bail before arrest which was rejected vide order dated 27-11-1988. The bail application was, later on, presented before the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) after the arrest having been effected. This bail application has also been rejected vide order, dated 7-1-1988. The learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, East, Karachi has recorded the following reasons for rejecting it:- "In the F.I.R. It is clearly stated that accused Islamuddin made 3 fires and the present petitioner made 2 fires. Similarly the 3rd accused also made 2 fires. The medical report shows that the deceased has 7 fire-arm injuries. In the circumstances, at this stage it cannot be said that there is a vague allegation in the F.I.R. And that the fire of petitioner did not cause the death of deceased. In my opinion this case is not fit for grant of bail. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed."
2. It was contended by Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, learned counsel for the applicant that from a plain reading of the F.I.R. It is evidently borne out that the applicant above named had fired after the deceased had sustained fatal injury from the firing of Islamuddin. It is not mentioned in the F.I.R.
3. That any of the two shots made by the applicant also hit the deceased. Relying therefore, upon a decision of this Court m Wadho and others v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J 2007, the learned counsel contended that the only allegation against the applicant at this stage is that of ineffective firing only.
4. The learned AA: G. As well as Mr. Qamar Muhammad Khan, learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the grant of bail. It was contended r. A.G. Mangi, learned AA.-G. That all the three accused had come out of that house with fire-arms which indicates that they had come out with a common intention to commit murder of the deceased Ulfat Bibi. It was contended by Mr. Qamar Muhammad Khan learned counsel for the complainant that as per medical report injuries Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were fatal injuries. As per F 1 R., injuries Nos. 3 and 4 were caused by the firing of Islamuddin, whereas the injury No.5 may be attributed to the firing of the other two accused persons. Even if this contention for the sake of argument is accepted then too it would require inquiry as to the firing of which of the said two accused caused the injury No.5. It will, therefore, still be a case of further inquiry. Since the prosecution case as per P'-I.R.; as far as I could see, is that the applicant and the other accused Islam Pehalwan made only ineffective firing. I am, therefore, of the opinion that it is a fit case for extending the concession of bail to the applicant. He is, therefore, admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 with P.R. Bonds in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.