ORDER ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA, J.- Case FIR No. 89 dated 24.6.1994 under section 302/34 PPC at P.S. Phillaura district Sialkot, was registered at the instance of Mohammad Bashir, complainant.
According to him, he along with his nephews, Mohammad Sajjad, Abdus Sattar and his son Fiyaz Ahmed was present in his house at about 11.30 a.m. On 24.6.1994 when all of a sudden they heard abuses from behind the house. He went on the roof top and was followed by Sattar, Fiyaz and Sajjad. Mohammad Jamil alias Bhutto armed with pistol, Mohammad Khalil alias Khaira also with pistol, Mohammad Shabhir with 7 m.m and Abdul Ghafoor with pistol, appeared on the roof of their house and hurled lot of abuses on the complainant side and simultaneously started firing. Jamil's fire hit Abdus Sattar who fell down and the other accused also started firing. Abdus Sattar later on succumbed to the injuries.
The motive for the occurrence was that a few days before the occurrence there took place a dispute and wrangling between Jamil and boys of complainant's side. In order to avenge that grievance, the accused party had launched attack and killed Abdus Sattar.
2. The participation of Shabhir and Abdul Ghafoor was held to be of doubtful nature by the Investigating Officer and they were consequently admitted to bail. The bail petition of Mohammad Khalil-petitioner was however rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks his bail on the ground that his case was at par with that of the accused Shabhir and Abdul Ghafoor who had been admitted to bail, as such, there was no valid reason for refusing bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned state counsel as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have refuted the assertions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and claimed that his case was distinguishable from those of aforesaid two accused who had been admitted to bail because their participation was held by the Investigating Officer to be of doubtful nature whereas there is no such remarks or observations against the petitioner's participation who was arrested soon after the occurrence and crime weapon was recovered from him on 10.7.1994.
5. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record which shows that no doubt or suspicion had been found with regard to Khalil who, prima facie, appeared to have participated in the occurrence, as such, his case was rightly distinguished by the learned Sessions Judge. He had allegedly taken part in the offence which can entail in capital punishment, as such there appears to be no ground for his release on bail. The application is, therefore, dismissed.