' Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Boota along with others were reported against vide F.I.R.
No,155, dated 12-8-1994 for offences under sections 302/148 and 149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Pull-11, District Sargodha.
2. According to F.I.R. Muhammad Arshad armed with .12 bore gun fired at Muhamthad Aslam which hit on his left flank; he also fired at Muhammad Mushtaq which hit on his chest while Muhammad Boota gave a Sota blow to Muhammad Akram which hit on the left side of his head.
2. In support of the petition, learned counsel argued that the net has been widen to involve the entire family of Muhammad Arshad; according to investigation conducted by S.P. C.I.A., Sargodha petitioner No,1 was present at the spot but he did not fire and it was Muhammad Ashraf who fired at the deceased as is evident from the report of Forensic Science Laboratory; the prosecution story is full of contradiction and that the injuries caused to one of the accused namely Muhammad Ashraf have been concealed. It was hot contended that since Muhammad Ashfaq and Muhammad Mushtaq have been released on bail as such the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession. Learned counsel placed reliance on 1994 PCr.LJ 149 and 1995 PCr.LJ 366 to support his arguments.
4. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the petition. He submitted that no fact has been concealed in the F.I.R. As is evident from reading of the same. Both the petitioners are specifically named in the F.I.R. With specific roles. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the police file.
6. In so far as the case of Muhammad Arshad, petitioner No,1, is concerned, he caused injury to Muhammad Aslam which hit on his chest and he died, therefore, his case is distinguishable from the co-accused namely Muhammad Ashfaq and Muhammad Mushtaq who have been granted bail. It is an admitted fact that .12 bore gun allegedly used by Muhammad Arshad was taken into possession by the police but strangely enough same was not forwarded to Ballistic Expert which fact is sufficient to demonstrate mala fide on the part of the Investigating Agency. It is also noteworthy that the gun recovered from the other accused namely Ashraf was sent to the Ballistic Expert.
7. Muhammad Boota, petitioner No,2, according to F.I.R. Is the main character. He had prima facie a motive for the commission of offence. The presence of the petitioner while armed with Sota is admitted and' the injury caused by him was also on the head of Muhammad Akram. The Sota has also been recovered. He after investigation of the case has been placed in column No,3 of report under section 173, Cr.P.C.
8. For what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to exercise my i., discretion in favour of the petitioners. Resultantly, the petition fails and isI '.. Hereby dismissed.
9. A copy of this order be forwarded to D.I.-G., Sargodha who may take necessary action in view of the observations made in para. 6 of this order.