' Tij Din alias Bholi petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and others with Police Station Mustafa Abad, District Kasur vide F.I.R. No,4/1995, dated 5-1-1995 for offences under section 302/324/34, P.P.C.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on 5-1-1995, the petitioner armed with Mauser along with other co-accused fired at Muhammad Akram and Munir Ahmad who were participating in a marriage party of Tariq son of Yaseen which caused the death of Muhammad Akram deceased.
The petitioner was arrested on 29-1-1995.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that according to postmortem report, there are four injuries on the person of the deceased whereas according to the F.I.R., two fires were attributed to the petitioners; perusal of post-mortem report indicates that in fact it was only one fire which firstly hit the right arm of the deceased, then injured the chest near armpit and the same bullet travelled and went out from injuries Nos.3 and 4; further that the petitioner has no motive to murder the deceased and lastly that the co-accused Saber Ali has been granted bail by this Court hence being a case of further inquiry is entitled to the grant of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail contending that the petitioner along with other co-accused is specifically named in the F.I.R.; the F.I.R. Was promptly lodged; it wag the daylight occurrence; recovery of Mauser has been made and challah has been submitted. Further contended that the case of Saber Ali co-accused, released on bail, is quite distinguishable and the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application of the petitioner observed that firing of the petitioner hit the deceased and held that deep analysis of the post- mortem report at bail stage is not permissible. The main contention of the learned, counsel that the learned trial Judge has erroneously held that the deeper analysis of the post-mortem report at bail stage is not permissible is miss conceived as by now it is well-settled IA principle of law that medical evidence-and site plan which contradict the ocular evidence cannot be subjected to detailed scrutiny are bail stage.
6. On consideration of the entire material on the file and bail granting order to Saber Ali accused by this Court, I am prima facie of the view that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has committed the offence with which he has been charged. It is not possible to suggest that the reasoning's of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to refuse the concession of bail to the petitioner were fanciful or arbitrary which would justify the grant of bail to the accused-petitioner.
7. In this view of the matter, the bail petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.