' This is an application for grant of bail to Muhammad Amin petitioner in a case under section 302/307/148/149/114, P.P C. Registered at P.S. Khairpur Tamewali, vide F.I.R. No, 148/88.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner and 5 others variously armed launched murderous assault on Fayyaz and others and thereby caused the death of Fayyaz and injuries to Pir Bakhsh, Allah Diwaya, Abdul Rehman, Mumtaz and Mst. Maryam P.Ws. On 17-9-1988 in village Sanat Ullah of P.S. Khairpur Tamewali.
' As for the petitioner, it has been alleged that he was armed with pistol and had fired two shots hitting Abdul Rehman and Mumtaz P.Ws.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the medico-legal report shows that Mumtaz P.W. Had not received any fire-arm wound; that the fire-arm injury of Abdul Rehman P.W. Has been declared simple; the possibility that Abdul Rehman might have received injury by a stray pellet fired by Manzoor Ahmad co-accused, cannot be excluded; that the occurrence took place all of a sudden and there was no pre-consultation between the petitioner and the co-accused for the murder of the deceased and injuries to the P.Ws.; the story of the prosecution that at the invitation of Qadir Bakhsh co-accused, 8 persons had gone to his house to take away Mst. Fayyaz Mai with them is highly improbable; it appears from the circumstances appearing in the case that the complainant party had trespassed into the house of Qadir Bakhsh in order to abduct Mst. Fayyaz Mai, as such, the accused party had a right of self-defence and that Mst. Fayyaz Mai has not been examined by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. Although she was a crucial witness. Reliance has been placed on cases Malian v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 1407, Muhammad Niaz v. The State 1988 P Cr.
L J 686, and Muhammad Ibrahim v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 1302. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I do not feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence. He was armed with a pistol and had fired at Mumtaz and Abdul Rehman. The medical evidence shows that Abdul Rehman had received fire-arm injury on the back of his chest, which is a vital part of the body. On the side of the complainant party one person lost his life and 6 received injuries, whereas no one from the side of the accused party received injury during the occurrence, which shows that the complainant party was not carrying any weapon with them at the time of occurrence. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner travel beyond the scope of tentative assessm ent and require deeper appreciation of evidence and surrounding circumstances, which is neither permissible nor desirable at this stage.
' For what has been said above, the petition is dismissed. .