ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 5-6-1994 dismissing the bail application of Munir Ahmed and Abdul Aziz appellants who are facing trial in a case under sections 109, 149, 324/148, P.P.C.
2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the appellants alongwith their co-accused formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object made a murderous assault on the complainant Haji Khair Muhammad, Advocate on 9-2-1994 at 10-00 a.m. In the precincts of Sessions Court, Bahawalpur. Precise allegation against the to appellants is that on the day of occurrence, when the complainant came out of the Court of Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, after having appeared in a case, Abdul Aziz pointed him out to Munir Ahmed who fired at him (the complainant) with a carbine which hit him on the back of his left hand and the left side of his abdomen.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel appearing for the State and the complainant. It is contended for the appellants that Munir Ahmed was not named in the F.I.R. Wherein only the description of the assailant was given by alleging that on the pointing out of Abdul Aziz appellant, a person with wheatish complexion and of middle height fired at the complainant with his carbine. Such a description, in the submission of the learned counsel, would fit in with every other citizen of the country. As regards Abdul Aziz appellant, contention of the learned counsel is that the only role assigned to him is that he pointed out the complainant to Munir Ahmed and no other overt at has been attributed to him. Thus, both the appellants, according to the learned counsel, were entitled to the grant of bail which has been illegally refused by the Courts below.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that the non--mention of the name of Munir Ahmed in the F.I.R. Was due to the reason that the complainant was seriously injured and was admitted in the Surgical Ward of the Hospital where his statement was recorded by the police and on the basis thereof, F.I.R. Was registered. However, in his supplementary statement recorded on that very day, the complainant gave the name of Munir Ahmed and the to eye-witnesses also specifically named him as assailant in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C.
5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that Munir Ahmed by name was not mentioned in the F.I.R. But as submitted by the learned counsel for the State, he was specifically named by the to eye-witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. And the complainant to mentioned his name in his supplementary statement recorded on the same day. Furthermore, he alone is alleged to have fired at the complainant with carbine and injured him. In the circumstances, his bail plea has been rightly rejected by the High Court. Petition qua him is accordingly dismissed.
Case of Abdul Aziz appellant, however, stands on a different footing. As noted above, the only role attributed to him is that he pointed the complainant to the assailant though we have noticed that according to the F.I.R., it was on the Plantation of Muhammad Iqbal accused that the assailant fired at the complainant. In any case, he is not alleged to have caused any injury to the complainant. He in fact was empty-handed. For all these reasons, we allow his request for bail and direct that he be released on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
6. It may be stated that the appeal was disposed of in the aforesaid terms by a short order for which reasons have been recorded herein.