JUDGMENT'
Sanaullah petitioner, who is involved in a case under section '302/307/149/148, P.P.C. Arising out of F.I.R. No.30/90, dated 23-1-1990, registered at Police Station City Burewala, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. The prosecution version is that on 23-1-1990, at about 5-45 p.m., Muhammad Ashraf complainant after closing his shop was going to his house alongwith Abdul Ghafoor and Abdul Sattar. In the way Manzoor-ul-Hassan also met them and accompanied them. When the party reached near the house of Ch. Nisar Gojar Advocate, they saw the petitioner armed with revolver and his co-accused also armed with lethal weapons. They caused injuries to the complainant party while the petitioner is alleged to have fired two shots in the air. It is also alleged that when the complainant party wanted to apprehend the accused, the petitioner again fired two shots in the air threatening the P.Ws. Not to come near them.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only attributed ineffective firing, he has no motive either, against the deceased or the injured P.Ws. Hence his participation is of doubtful character and the case against him is of further inquiry. He further contended that the petitioner is a student and has no ostensible motive to join hands with the co-accused for the murder of the deceased and to injure P.Ws., who are businessmen and are not students of Government College, where the petitioner is studying. He also contended that on account of political rivalry, the petitioner has been named as one of the accused and no crime empty was found at the place of occurrence.
Learned counsel also contended that bare reading of the F.I.R. Would disclose that there is no evidence so far with the police to show that the petitioner actually shared the common object with the principal accused, hence he is not vicariously liable for the act of the co-accused and as such the case against him is of further inquiry.
4. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, submitted that the petitioner facilitated the commission of crime by resorting to Ineffective firing, the occurrence took place in the Bazar, the F.I.R., has been lodged promptly, wherein the name of the petitioner is mentioned as one of the assailants, hence there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is involved is a case which entails punishment of death or imprisonment for life.
As such, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. He has placed reliance on Ghulam Muhammad v. The State PLD 1981 Lah. 109, Haq Nawaz v. The State 1987 MLD 3174 and Mubarik Shah v. The State 1986 SC. M R 1681. .
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record I find substantial force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, because bare reading of the F.I.R.
Would show that there is no ostensible community of object between the petitioner and the other accused, who actually caused injuries to the deceased and the P.Ws. The petitioner is a student of 4th year in the Government College, Burewala and. Possibility cannot be ruled out that on account of some political rivalry, his name might have been mentioned as one of the assailants, because there is no corroboration so far available on the record with respect to the part, alleged to have been played by the petitioner. The police has not recovered any crime empty from the spot which could lend some support to the prosecution version that the petitioner opened the fire. Even the revolver recovered from the petitioner after his arrest was not found containing any crime empty which could strengthen the prosecution case. I do not want to go deeper into the evidence, but tentative assessm ent of the evidence would disclose that prima facie, the petitioner has not any common object or community of intention with his co-accused, hence the case against him is of further inquiry. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C., Burewala.
SA./S-974/L