RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.- Petitioners Inayat Ali, Maqbool Ahmad and Muhammad Yousuf seek bail in a case registered against them and another with Police Station Jarranwala, for an offence under sections 302/324/34 PPC W
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased, therefore, their case is on different footing from that of Ahmad Ali, their co- accused. Argued that the petitioners had no motive to participate in the occurrence, therefore, it was a case of further inquiry. Asserted that it was yet to be established which party was aggressor, because admittedly the complainant side also resorted to firing. It was further urged that Ahmad Ali, the main accused, who was responsible for the death of Muhammad Nawaz, deceased, had since been released on bail, and the case of the petitioners was at better footing than that of said Ahmad Ali. The contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the i.e carefully. As far as Ahmad Ali, co- accused is concerned, it is mentioned in para 6 of the petition that he had been murdered by the complainant party, for which an FIR, bearing No.737/93 at Police Station Jarranwala was registered on 9.11.1993. In this view of the assertion it is clear that Ahmad Ali was not allowed bail but he was done to death. As far as the petitioners are concerned, they were armed, they resorted to indiscriminate firing as a result of which three persons received firearm injuries. The injured witnesses in their statements before the police have fully implicated the petitioners with the occurrence. In these circumstances, no ground for bail is made out. The petition fails, which is accordingly dismissed.