1. ' By this applications the two applicants, Ghulam Shabir and Ibrahim, seek bail in a case under section 397, 148, 149 and 34, P.P.C. And under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Nawabshah. They are two of the four persons named in the F.I.R. Who alongwith the 5th accused claiming to the members of gang of dacoit Umer Lanjhar had approached the complainant to give them an amount of Rs. 5,000 to purchase ammunition for their operations. As on the day of demand the complainant had nothing to offer them he asked them to come later on so that he is able to collect the amount and pay them the same. They agreed to visit him on the third day.
2. ' The complainant and some of his neighbours armed with their licensed guns were in the house of the complainant when at about 2 a.m. On the appointed day they came over to collect the promised money. There was an exchange of fire between them but none from the two sides received any injury. The dacoits left some of their articles at the place and went away.
3. ' The complainant then went to police station Bachal Pur, Nawabshah and lodged the complaint which was registered as Crime No, 22/89. The police after usual investigation have sent up the present applicants and others to stand their trial as mentioned above.
4. ' The present applicants applied for grant of bail to the Sessions Judge, Nawabshah who by his order dated 16-10-1989 had rejected their application and the applicants have now approached this Court for grant of bail pending their trial before him.
5. ' Ch. Khursheed the Adovcate for the applicants has contended that the firing between the parties was ineffective as nobody was injured. He further contended that the complainant did not file any complaint immediately after he was asked by the dacoits to pay them an amount of Rs. 5,000 for the purchase of ammunition. Such story according to him is not only false but unnatural. In view of above it is a case of further enquiry and the applicants are entitled to the grant of bail. He has relied on a case reported in 1986 P Cr. L J 1568.
6. ' Mr. Dhani Bux Dayo the Advocate for the State has opposed the grant of bail as according to him the names of the applicants are mentioned in the F.I.R. Which was registered immediately after the incident and, independent and natural witnesses have been named therein who have supported the case of the prosecution and incriminating articles left by the assailants recovered from the vardat.
7. ' The case relied on by the Advocate for the applicants relates to a case where the applicants were involved as the provisions of 34, P.P.C. Was attracted in their case. The facts of that case are different from the facts of this case.
8. ' Each of the assailants had fired and therefore none of them is implicated as being liable for action under section 34, P.P.C.
9. Incidents of extortion of huge amounts of money by criminals either by way of collection of ransom money for releasing persons kidnapped by them or under the pretext of buying ammunition for their illegal acts have indeed become very common. It is high time that our Courts now take a note of such incidents and be slow in exercise of their discretionary powers of granting bail in such cases. This is one such cases and I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants. This bail application is therefore dismissed.