MALIK MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN AWAN, J. ~ This oder shall dispose of Cr.M.No. 4614-B/96, Cr.M.No. 4273-B/C/96 and Cr.M.No. 2961- B/C/96.
2. Cr.M.No.2961-B/C/96 has been filed by Muhammad Ameer for cancellation of to Khuda Dad, Sarfaraz (since died) and Muhammad Sher respondents by oder dated 2.7.1996 Cr.M.No.4273- B/C/96 was filed for cancellation of to Muhammad Ashaf and Ghulam Jillani, respondents. Cr.M.No. 4614-B/96 has been tiled by Shaukat Hayat, Muhammad Feroz and Ahmad Nawaz petitioners for grant of bail to them. All the matters arise out of FIR No. 50 dated 8.5.1996, under sections 324/341, 148/149 P.P.C, registered at P.S. Katha Sagral, District Khushab and were heard together.
3. The occurrence took place on 8.5.1996/and FIR was registered at the instance of Muhammad Ameer who stated that he had purchased a bus about 15/16 days before and the same plied between village Nalli and Sargodha. According to the complainant the Bus was proceeding to Sargodha and when it reached near the Baithak of Mazhar Lumbardar, the road wa; blocked by a log of wood at Which the bus which wars being driven by his son Ikhlas stoped According to the complainant his son Mian Muhammad wa: sitting on front seat of the Bus, his son Dost Muhammad was sitting on top of the bus alongwith a number of other persons. The laus was full o passengers.
The complainant stepped down to remove the log, when Muhammad Feroz. Ahmad Nawaz armed with 12-bore gun Ghulam Jillani Dawood, Muhammad Mumtaz, Sarfraz, Dost Muhammad armed with sticks, Muhammad Sher. Shaukat Hayat, Sarfaraz, Khuda Dad, Muhammad Ashraf and Ghulam Jillani armed with shot guns emerged from the street. Muhammad Feroz and Ahmad Nawaz raised a lalkara and Muhammad Feroz fired first shot on Dost Muhammad hitting him on left, side of neck.
The second shot fired by Ahmad Nawaz hit Dost Muhammad on left shoulder and he fell on the top of vehicle. Muhammad Mumtaz poked the complainant, with stick on his chest. Mian Muhammad was fired upon by Shaukat Hayat hitting on his right leg. The shot fired by Khuda Dad hit Mian Muhammad on left leg. Muhammad Sher, Sarfaraz, Muhammad Ashraf, Ghulam Jillani fired at passengers sitting in the bus injuring Khaliqnawaz. Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Nazir.
Ghulam Jilani, Sanwal Khan. Dawood, Muhammad Mumtaz. Sarfaraz, Dost Muhammad and 4/5 other persons carrying sticks stood before the bus restraining its movement.
4. After registration of the case, the accused approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge for grant of bail. Learned Additional Sessions Judge. Khoshab by order dated 2.7.1996 allowed bail in anticipation of arrest to Khuda Dad and Muhammad Sher. Muhammad Ashraf and Ghulam Jilani were allowed post arrest bail by order dated 23.7.1996. The complainant filed aforementioned applications for cancellation of to respondents whereas Shaukat Hayat, Muhammad Feroz and Ahmad Nawaz submitted application for grant of bail to them. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.
5. Learned counsel for Shahukat Hayat and others submitted that the complainant had enroped a large number of persons in the incident which shows malafides on his pail. It was contended that there was a dispute between the two rival transporters over timing of buses owned by them and there was cross firing due to which certain persons were injured. It was contended that the injuries attributed to the petitioners were simple in nature and the case of the petitioners did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., as the injuries attributed to the petitioners would entail a maximum sentence of 3 years R.I. Alone. It was contended that the pase did no^ fall at all under section 324 P.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant pleading for cancellation of to accused/respondents submitted that they were attributed specific roles and they had actively participated in the incident which was a pre-planned affair and the learned Additional Sessions Judge had erroneously granted pre-arrest bail to the accused-respondents and likewise grant of post arrest bail was also unjustified and the facts and circumstances of the case were not kept in view.
Opposing the prayer made by Shaukat Hayat and others, it was submitted that Muhammad Feroz and Ahmad Nawaz were owners of the bus and they had tried to force the complainant out of business and launched a concerted attack with the help of their co- accused on the complainant and his sons and they did not deserve concession of bail as the offence was heinous in nature and besides that the case of the accused also fell under prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the State also supported the learned counsel for the complainant.
7. The occurrence took place when a bus owned by the complainant was proceeding from their village to Sargodha. The allegation is that 13 co- accused as well as 4/5 other persons whose names were not given in the FIR. Blocked the passage of the bus and thereafter some of the accused fired at the bus hitting certain passengers and son of the complainant, when the complainant himself tried to remove the log blocking the passage. According to record Muhammad Feroz and Ahmad Nawaz were rival transporters anil they have launched attack of the complainant in order to restrain him from competing with them. Muhammad Feroz and Ahmad Nawaz allegedly opened attack on the complainant party. Prima Facie, they had a motive to restrain the complainant or to force him out of business. They do not deserve concession of bail as they had gathered a number of persons, had opened attack and had also caused injuries to the P.Ws. The application1 to their extent stands dismissed.
8. As far as Shaukat Hayat and others are concerned. Shaukat Hayat had fired at Mian Muhammad hitting him on his right leg. Similarly, one Khuda Dad Khan fired at Mian Muhammad hitting him on his left leg. The injury on the person of injured P.W. Is a single pellet injury, which is Ghair Jaifa Mutlahma and entails a maximum sentence of 3 years R.I. The role played by Shaukat Hayat, does not bring his case within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Resultantly, he is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-(Thirty thousands) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
9. As far as the prayer for cancellation of to other respondents is concerned, it has been found that the bail was allowed to them on proper appreciation of material on record. The orders granting bails are neither arbitrary nor militate against the material brought on record.
10. The applications for cancellation of bails are dismissed.