1. The applicants seek bail in Crime No.6/1985 of P.S. Mehar under sections 302, 307, 452, 114, 148, 149, P.P.C. Registered on 17-1-1985 by complainant, Ghulam Shabbir. The bail applications moved for the two applicants separately have been decided by seperate orders dated 8-1-1991 and 17-1-1991 by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu. Through this single bail application, the applicants seek bail for the aforesaid crime.
2. The facts in brief are that on 17-1-1985 due to some death in the family of the complainant, certain guests were staying in his house and when they were sleeping at about 11-30 the complainant woke-up on some commotion and saw 13 persons standing in the courtyard of his house, those named in the F.I.R. And the present applicants were said to be amongst them. There was indiscriminate firing and as many as three persons died, whose names were. Muhammad Alam, Ghulam Hyder, and Mst. Imamzadi while three persons got injured amongst whom one is Mst. Qaim Khatoon.
3. It is contended by the learned Advocate that the lower Court has dismissed the bail application of the applicants without assigning any reason. He has also contended that he filed the affidavit of Mst. Qaim Khatoon, the injured and Ghulam Shabbir, the complainant, whereby the said witnesses exonerated the applicants. These affidavits, according to the learned Advocate, were not considered by the trial Court in its true perspective. He has also contended that the applicant Ali Hassan was arrested on 6-2-1990 and Saeed Khan on 8-2-1990 and no progress in the case was made. The learned Advocate has placed reliance on PLD 1989 Karachi 281 (Jagan and others v. The State) and has contended that the police had acted mala fide in apprehending the applicants and that in such circumstances, the case of the applicants is 'a fit case for grant of bail. He has also placed reliance on PLD 1972 SC 81 (Manzoor and 4 others v. The State) and has contended that bail should not be withheld as punishment and. It was not correct to depend on ipso of police regarding guilt or innocence of accused.
4. Mr. AA. Muhammad Ally, learned Additional A.-G. Has opposed the grant of bail and has contended that the persons named in the F.I.R. Were distinctly seen by the complainant and others in the light and there could be no mistaken identity. Amongst those named in the F.I.R. Are two applicants herein, who had actually absconded and applicant Ali Hassan was arrested on 6-12-1989 and Saeed Khan on 8-2-1990. With regard to the affidavit sworn by the injured Qaim Khatoon, it is contended by the learned counsel that there are other eye-witnesses, but their affidavits have not been filed. Opposing the bail to the applicants on the ground of affidavits, the learned State Counsel has placed reliance on PLD 1984 Kar..223. With regard to the absconsion of the apphcant the learned State Counsel has contended that in such circumstances, the applicants are not entitled to the grant of bail and has placed reliance on PLD19811 SC91, PLD 1988 SC 182, PLD 1985 SC 402 and 1985 SCMR 382. He has vehemently opposed the grant of bail.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned Advocates and perused the case-law referred. The two applicants herein have been named in the F.I.R. And the incident was witnessed by many others besides She complainant and injured Mst. Qaim Khatoon. Ghulam Shabbir, the complainant, for whom a direction was given for the production before this Court, never appeared and Mst. Qaim Khatoon, a lady of about 65 years of age, appeared today and supported her affidavit. Since there are other witnesses in the case beside Mst. Qaim Khatoon, her affidavit alone could not be made basis for grant of concession of bail. The applicant is involved in such a. Heinous crime, wherein 3 persons were killed and 3 were seriously injured. The case-law referred by the learned Advocate is absolutely nut relevant to the facts of the case in hand. I agree with the contentions of the learned State Counsel on all the points raised and see no reason to grant bail to the applicants. Their bail application is accordingly dismissed.