Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and others under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Bhalwal, District Sargodha, on 29-12-1987.
2. According to F.I.R. The complainant was returning home from the Courts on a motor-cycle.
Muhammad Bakhsh and Haq Nawaz were also with him on the same motor-cycle. His son Bashir (deceased), Sarfraz and Umra, who were riding different motor-cycles, were also accompanying him. The complainant was going ahead. When they reached near Daiwal at 10-30 a.m. Car No.1331 belonging to Ahmad Harral came behind, in which Ijaz Ahmad, Khizra, Shahbaz (petitioner), Manka and two unknown persons were sitting. They were all armed with guns. The car struck from behind the motor-cycle of Bashir Ahmad. He fell down alongwith his two companions. The accused came out of the car. Bashir, Sarfraz and Umra started running. The accused chased them. Bashir Ahmad was fired at by Ijaz, which struck him on the back. Khizra and Shahbaz petitioner also fired a shot each hitting him on the back and buttocks. He fell down whereafter, the said three accused fired a- shot each on him which struck him on the ankle. Umra was fired at by Manka and the two unknown persons, as a result of which he fell down. He was also given a butt blow on the head by Manka.
When Sarfraz went ahead to save him, he was caused injuries with the butts of the guns by the two unknown persons on different parts of the body. Bashir died while being taken to the hospital.
About motive for the occurrence, it is stated that the bus of Ahmad Harral was set on fire 5/6 months before this occurrence. A case regarding that was registered against the deceased, Umra and Muhammad Bakhsh etc. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. That the occurrence had taken place at the instance of Bati, Zulfiqar and Nawaz.
3. Bail is being sought by the petitioner on the grounds, that he is innocent and has been falsely involved m this case, that even during investigation he was not found to have been armed with anything nor having caused any injury to the deceased or the PWs, and that per investigations conducted by the S.H.O. And th\ D:S.P. He had not played any role in any physical way. Lastly, it is contended that he is in jail since about fifteen months.
4. Learned counsel for the State while opposing the bail has conceded that the part assigned to the petitioner in the F.I.R. Was not found to be true by the Investigating Officers. He, however, stated that according to the investigations, he was very much at the spot and had played a role in commission of the offence, in that, he stated that when Bashir deceased had started running after receiving some injuries, petitioner had chased him, caught him and thrown him on the ground, whereafter, he was given more injuries, as a result of which he died and that he had also caught Umra before he was given injuries.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the grant of bail submitted that even according to the Investigating Officers the eye-witnesses have persistently maintained the stand during investigations that the petitioner was armed with a gun and had caused injuries to the deceased. The counsel for the State as well as counsel for the complainant was allowed tine to look into the file before answering the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to his instructions Shahbaz petitioner was not found to have played any role in the occurrence in any physical manner.
6. Per allegations levelled in the F.I.R. And the statements, made by the injured witnesses as well as other witnesses, who had seen the occurrence, the petitioner was armed with a gun and had caused injuries to the deceased by firing the same. He was also riding the car which had struck the motor-cycle of the deceased and the PWs, as a result of which they had fallen on the ground, and fell prey to the assailants. Even according to the result of the investigations, he had played a role in the occurrence which can easily be termed as facilitation of commission of murder. In the presence of such allegations, it cannot be assumed that reasonable grounds do not appear at this stage of the petitioner having committed the offence.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, in fact, was not present at the time of occurrence and has been falsely dragged in the case, is neither here nor there, as there is nothing to consider this plea at this stage.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, no case for bail is made out. The petition is dismissed.
Needless to say that the observations made above will have no bearing while deciding the case.
SA./S-504/L