' Applicants along with co-accused Iqbal, Bashir, Nazro, Nawaz and Dosso are facing trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sehwan for committing the murder of deceased Ali Akbar and causing hurt to P.W. Mehboob Ali in Crime No,49/1995 registered at Police Station Bhan.
2. Precise charge against the applicants and co-accused person is that on14-10-1995 at 7-30 p.m.
The persons named above along with three unidentified persons duly armed with hatchets and Lathis assaulted Ali Akbar and Mehboob Ali. It is said that accused Iqbal inflicted hatchet blow to Ali Akbar whereas Ali Nawaz gave hatchet blow by back side of hatchet while rest of the assailants caused Lathi blows to him. With regard to injured Mehboob Ali it is said that accused Bashir, Dosso and Nazro .Caused Lathi injuries to him. Report of the incident was promptly lodged by Saeed Ahmed, the same day at 8-10 p.m. It is said that after first aid given to Akbar Ali he was removed to Liaquat Medical College Hospital, Jamshoro where he succumbed to his injuries on the next day.
3. Bail application on behalf of the applicants was moved before the trial Court which was rejected hence the prayer for bail.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that there are general allegations of causing Lathi blows against the applicants and no specific role has been assigned to them. In this context, he has read over the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of injured Akbar Ali recorded by police and statement of P.W. Mehboob Ali under section 164, Cr.P.C. His next contention is that name of applicant Iman does not transpire in the F.I.R. And he has wrongly been implicated with the commission of crime.
5. On the other hand, learned. Assistant Advocate-General has opposed the grant of bail for the reason that all the assailants including the applicants committed the crime in furtherance of their common object duly armed with hatchets and Lathis. Their presence at the scene of offence is not disputed and the question of their false involvement cannot be determined at this stage. In support of his contention, learned Assistant Advocate-General has relied on the cases reported in PLD 1995 SC 34 and PLD 1995 Kar.
514. In both the cases the view expressed was that an accused is vicariously liable for the commission of the crime committed by the co-accused if there is prima facie evidence of sharing a common intention. In these circumstances, it cannot be held at this stage that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicants did not commit the offence alleged against them.
6. As regards the commission of the name of the applicant Iman in the F.I.R., learned trial Court as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General have explained that this applicant is known as Jabbar alias Iman which name transpires in the F.I.R. Applicant has not produced his National Identity Card or any evidence to rebut the presumption. There is thus no substance in the argument that this applicant has been wrongly and falsely involved.
7. For the aforesaid facts and reasons there is no merit in this application which must fail but the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as the applicants are entitled to an early trial under the law.