1. ' The present bail application has been moved for grant of bail to the present 3 applicants who have been sent up to stand trial alongwith co-accused Chhuto under section 302/34 PPC registered with P.S. Kandhkot as Crime No, 1 of 1989. Briefly the case of the prosecution as given in the FIR is that on the date of incident the complainant alongwith his father deceased Abdul Rehman and relatives Meenhon and Jam had gone to the town of Kandhkot. When at about 5-00 p.m. They reached Bundain Bazar's Clock Tower, they saw the present applicants alongwith co- accused Chhuto emerging from a street on the western side. All the accused are said to be armed with guns. At that time the deceased father of the complainant was about 8/10 paces ahead of the complainant and PWs. Applicant Sharbat then challenged the deceased father of the complainant that they will take revenge. On this applicant Nather is said to have fired at the deceased who was hit and fell down whereupon the applicants Sharbat and Attai brought their guns over the deceased and fired at his chest which hit the target and he died there. Co-accused Chhuto is said to have aimed his gun at complainant party to prevent them from coming near. The accused then went away. Police after usual investigation challaned the case. Bail application was moved before the trial Court which was rejected and, therefore, this bail application.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Awan Rehmatullah Nadeem for the applicants. He has pressed the bail application on three grounds. Firstly the learned counsel has submitted that there is inconsistency in the ocular and medical evidence inasmuch as the FIR and the statements of the witnesses show that in all three shots were fired from the guns at the deceased which all hit him and that two of the said shots are said to have been aimed at the chest of the deceased whereas the postmortem report shows that only one shot was hit on the chest of the deceased. From this the learned counsel has submitted that this is a case of further enquiry and the applicants are entitled to grant of bail. He has placed reliance on the following cases:--
(1) Walayat and another v. The State 1984 SCM R 530.
(2) Nazir and another v. The State 1978 SCM R 285.
(3) Ahmed Yar and 2 others v. The State NLR 1983 Cr.C.
3. 102.
(4) Zakaullah v. Mohammad Khan and State 1984 PCr.LJ 2461.
4. ' In the first case cited above the bail was granted for the reason that accused was alleged to have given hammer blow on the ankle of deceased but no such injury was found on deceased's person.
5. In the second case the allegation against one accused was of causing head injuries to the deceased and those against both accused being strangulation of deceased whereas no such marks were found by doctor on the neck of the deceased and also that FIR did not contain any allegation of head injury. In the third case a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court granted bail on the ground that the FIR contained allegations of stick blows to have been given on the chest of deceased whereas the doctor did not observe any such injury. The fourth case was that of cancellation of bail wherein the bail granted by Sessions Judge on the ground of the postmortem report adversely affecting the narration in FIR was maintained. The learned counsel has also referred to some unreported bail orders passed by the Single Bench of this Court.
6. ' Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed, learned counsel for A.A.-G. For the State has referred to the post-mortem report and has submitted that the post-mortem report does not show any inconsistency with ocular evidence. I have examined the post-mortem report which shows that the deceased has suffered in all 8 injuries caused by fire-arm and seven pellets have been recovered from the body of the deceased. Injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are entry wounds. Injuries Nos. 1 and 4 are on chest while injury No, 3 is on back. This corroborates the ocular version that 2 shots were fired at the chest of deceased. However, at the stage of considering the bail application the Court is not to go into deep appreciation of the evidence but all that is to be seen is whether there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed the non-bailable offence or if there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry. Moreover, if there be any discrepancy in the medical evidence, the same is to be considered at the stage of trial at the time of examination of the medical' officer.
7. ' The second ground urged by the learned counsel for applicants is that the motive as mentioned in the FIR is that the present complainant was the accused in the case of murder of the brother of the accused Sharbat and therefore the accused party should have killed the complainant and not his father. From this the learned counsel has submitted that the motive as given in the FIR is highly improbable. He has placed reliance on the following cases:--
(1) Allahyar v. Ranjha and others 1979 SCM R 557.
(2) Jaffar and others v. The State 1980 SCM R 784.
(3) Ali Goher v. The State 1986 SCM R 730.
8. ' It may respectfully be observed that the cases of Allahyar and Ali Goher as cited above are the cases where the Hon'able Supreme Court set aside the conviction in criminal appeals and that the facts of these cases are not the same as in the present case. In case of Jaffar and others v. The State the bail was granted on the ground that it had yet to be determined as to which accused had caused which injury, whereas in the present case the specific acts have been attributed to the present accused/applicants. The learned counsel has also cited some other case law but the facts of those cases are different from the present case.
9. ' The third ground taken by the learned counsel for applicants is that the recovery of alleged weapons as shown by the prosecution is false. I cannot subscribe to the said contention of the learned counsel as the mashirnama shows that empty cartridges have been secured from the place of incident and also that the guns have been recovered from the accused.
10. Mr. - Mushtaq Ahmed learned counsel appearing for AA.-G. For the State, opposing the bail application has further submitted that the accused/applicants have been named in the FIR, specific role has been attributed to them, recovery of firearms is effected from the accused and the PWs have fully implicated them. From the above discussion I am of the view that there is sufficient material on record to link the present applicants with the commission of the alleged offence and there are reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed the alleged offence. The bail application is, therefore, dismissed.