' This is the second application seeking bail. Earlier one was dismissed by this Court on 9-5-1992.
The facts in brief are that a case stand registered against the petitioner and others with Police Station Nishatabad, Faisalabad, for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. (Qisas and Diyat Ordinance) read with section 109/148/149, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. Dated 20-6-1991. The case was got registered by Muhammad Aslam with the allegation that his sons Liaqat All and Rifaqat All lived in Chak No,4-G/B. On 20-6-1991, the first informant with his son Shehbaz went to the house of his other sons Liaqat All and Rifaqat Ali. They were sitting in the house when they heard commotion outside.
He also heard that they were being asked to come out so that revenge could be taken about the incident which took place in the hospital. At about 2 p.m. First informant with his sons opened the main gate of the house and came out in the lane. Their co-accused Mudassar Farooq, armed with 7 mm rifle, alongwith the petitioners and others, also armed with guns, were present there. Bashir Ahmad, co-accused, raised a Lalkara that Aslam and his sons be done to death. In the meanwhile, Mudassar fired with his rifle hitting Rifaqat All on his forehead and the bullet went through his head, who fell down. First informant with his other sons took shelter behind the gate. The petitioners alongwith their co-accused started firing at them. The pellets hit the main gate and wall of the house. After some time, the assailants left.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the case was thoroughly investigated and thereafter the petitioners were held innocent and, in such circumstances, their case does become of further inquiry. It was further asserted that the police during investigation has come to the conclusion that the occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged by the complainant, but it took place in different circumstances and by different accused. The petition was opposed by learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the police file in detail. Subsequent to the dismissal of bail application of the petitioners, three investigations were conducted. In the last investigation conducted by S.P. Crimes, petitioners were found involved in the occurrence and he recommended for prosecution. Even otherwise, as observed in the earlier application, the petitioners are named in the F.I.R., specific role to each of the petitioners has been ascribed.
Complainant's statement, prima facie, finds corroboration from medical evidence as well as the fact that pellet marks were seen on the gate and on the wall of the house of the complainant. Even if the petitioners were not responsible for having caused any injuries to the deceased that would not matter because they after arming themselves went to the house of the deceased and resorted to indiscriminate firing. No ground for bail is made out. The petition fails, which is, accordingly, dismissed.