' On 19-4-1992 a case under sections 302, 379, 337-A, 337-F(iii), 148 and 149 P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Burjwala, Tehsil and District Sahiwal at the instance of Riaz Ahmad complainant against Sadiq, Haji Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, Zawar, Ghulam Hussain, Qasim Ali, Talib, Zafar, Abbas and Manzoor accused.
2. It was alleged that the aforesaid accused while variously armed had attacked and injured Riaz Ahmad, Amir, Sadiq P.Ws. and Muhammad Iqbal deceased the brother of the complainant. The deceased succumbed to his injuries. The motive for the occurrence was stated to be a dispute between the parties over some land.
3. Qasim Ali, petitioner herein, who was arrested on 11-5-1992, has applied for his post-arrest bail.
4. I have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
5. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he had caused a fire-arm injury on the right hand of Muhammad Iqbal deceased with a .12 bore gun.
6. Bail of the petitioner is sought on the following three grounds: ' Firstly, that the injury attributed to him was not located on any vital part of the body of the deceased and was simple in nature; secondly, that one of the investigating officers had declared him innocent during the investigation; and thirdly that he was behind the bars for the last about 13 months and his trial was not in sight.
7. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application on the ground that from the role attributed to the petitioner it is manifestly clear that he had intended to cause the death of the deceased and thus shared common intention with his co-accused who inflicted the fatal injury. It was further maintained that the petitioner had been found guilty during the subsequent investigation conducted by a senior gazetted officer and that the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail because the trial has already commenced.
8. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Abdul Sattar alias Bagga v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 1313 and Javed Iqbal v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 2429. I am afraid both the authorities are not applicable in the present case as the facts of the present case are different from the facts of the aforementioned cases. The allegation against the petitioner to the effect that he had inflicted a fire-arm injury on the deceased, is supported by the evidence collected by the investigating agency. The perusal of the record shows that A.S.P., Arifwala had declared the petitioner innocent and had recommended his discharge but subsequently the Additional. S.P., Sahiwal during the reinvestigation of the case found him guilty and held that he (the petitioner) had participated in the commission of the crime charged against him. Thus the opinion of the A.S.P., Arifwala is of no great help to him. As regards the contention that the trial in the present case had commenced and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail, information was obtained from the learned trial Court on telephone today. The learned trial Court has informed that 24-4-1993 was fixed in the case for the prosecution evidence but as one of the accused i.e. Manzoor had absented himself the case has been adjourned to 7-7-1993 for his presence. This shows that the trial has actually commenced and it is the practice of superior Courts not to grant or cancel bail in a murder case at such a stage. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail in this case at this stage. His application is dismissed.
9. The learned trial Court is, however, directed to conclude the trial by the 15th of October, 1993. If Manzoor accused is found to have absconded his case shall be separated from the other accused.
Compliance shall be reported to the O.S.D. (Judicial), Lahore High Court, Lahore.