SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.---This appeal has been directed against the order of the Shariat Court dated 7-11-1996, whereby the bail granted to respondents Nos. l and 2 by District Criminal Court, Pallandri, was kept intact and the revision petition filed was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Shah P.I, complainant, was serving in the Army and was on two months' leave; his niece, Mst. Shisham Jan, was married to one Muhammad Hayat, who is co- accused in the case. There was a family dispute between Muhammad Hayat and Mst. Shisham Jan and, thus, the parties resolved to solve the dispute through negotiations. Consequently, a 'Jirga' was held at the house of Muhammad Hayat, accused, wherein, Muhammad Hussain, Gul Hussain, Parvaiz, Ashfaq, Muhammad Ishaque, Tariq Khan, Haji Lal and the complainant participated on the invitation of Muhammad Hayat. During the conversation, some remarks were given by Muhammad Hayat regarding the character of his wife, Mst. Shisham Jan, on which an altercation took place between Gul Hussain and Muhammad Hayat, accused, According to the prosecution, Muhammad Hayat left the room and went to the contiguous house of Muhammad Akram, his brother.
Thereafter, Muhammad Hayat and his brother, Muhammad Akram, reached the spot armed with guns and fired at Gul Hussain and Muhammad Hussain who were seriously injured; consequently Muhammad Hussain succumbed to the injuries at the spot. It is further the case of the prosecution that when Muhammad Hayat and his brother Muhammad Akram launched the attack they were accompanied by Mazhar Hussain and Muhammad Arshad, the accused-respondents, who were armed with 'pail' and---Danda' respectively. The aforesaid two respondents are also alleged to have inflicted injuries to Muhammad Hussain, deceased, and the complainant. The accused have been challaned in District Criminal Court, Pallandri, and are facing trial under section 307/34, A.P.C., read with section 5/15, Islamic Penal Laws Act. Mazhar Hussain and Muhammad Arshad, respondents, were granted anticipatory bail but subsequently the same was not confirmed and thus, they were arrested and remained in Jail for some months. Thereafter, they moved the trial Court afresh for their bail and the District Criminal Court Pallandri allowed bail to them. The State feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Criminal Court, Pallandri, preferred a revision petition to the Shariat Court which has been dismissed.
3. We have heard the arguments and gone through the file. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sardar Abdul Hamid Khan, Advocate, has argued that the Courts below have committed error in extending concession of bail to the accused-respondents because according to the prosecution witnesses they participated in the commission of offence in question and are constructively liable for the said offences. The learned counsel has further argued that it is not permissible at bail stage to indulge in deep appreciation of evidence. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the Shariat Court was not legally justified in confirming the order of the trial Court on the ground that the injuries with blunt weapon attributed to the respondents were not found either on the person of Muhammad Hussain, deceased, or Shah P.I, complainant. The learned counsel has also contended that in fact the respondents were instrumental in hatching a conspiracy for putting the life of Muhammad Hussain to an end and an attack on Gut Hussain and others. The learned counsel has referred to the following authorities in support of his contentions:-- 1982 SCMR 84), it was observed that although the accused who was alleged to have armed with a stick did not appear to have caused any injury in view of the medical report yet as the accused had taken out money from the pocket of the victim of offence, he was not entitled to the concession of bail and, thus, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
1982 SCMR 208), it was observed that the fact that the medical report did not agree with the account given by the eye-witnesses might be a relevant factor at trial, yet such matter cannot be gone into at bail stage. It was further observed that the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in case reported as PLD 1972 SC 81 should be read in light of peculiar circumstances of each case; the view taken in one criminal case may not be helpful in other criminal case. The fate of each case would depend on its peculiar circumstances.
PLD 1994 SC 65), it has been observed that whether a case falls within the ambit of further inquiry would depend upon the peculiar circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rules can be laid down for that purpose. It was further observed that the question as to which of the assailant was responsible for causing fatal injury of the victim to offence was not relevant in view of the circumstances of the case, because the allegation against the accused in the F.I.R. Was that they were armed with 'lathis and sarya' and all of them inflicted injuries to the deceased. The bail was refused to the accused-appellants and the orders of the Courts below were confirmed.
PLD 1990 SC 758), it has been observed that as the injuries found on the accused persons were of minor nature and, thus, those were not sufficient to justify the concession of bail to the accused persons on the ground that they might have acted in self-defence. It was further observed that if the Court below while granting bail failed to take note of the relevant facts, it would amount to misreading of the record and the Supreme Court would interfere in the matter. It was further observed that as the High Court, while granting bail failed to consider the relevant facts, the bail order was not sustainable. Hence his bail was cancelled.
4. A survey of case law relied upon by the Learned counsel for the appellant shows that ordinarily the view expressed on bail matters in other cases is not helpful because each criminal case is to be decided in view of its peculiar facts. In the instant case, both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the accused-respondents were entitled to bail in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case in hand. This Court, while dealing with the bail matters, would interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below only if the same is found to be perverse or violative of settled principle of law. In the instant case, it is common ground between the parties that the incident took place when the negotiations between the parties were going on in a 'Jirga' due to some remarks which were given by Muhammad Hayat, accused, with regard to the character of his wife. Besides, the learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that according to the medical report, some accused persons were also injured in the incident. Thus, under these circumstances, it cannot be said at this stage that the Courts below have acted perversely in extending bail to the accused-respondents, especially so when according to the medical report, the injuries attributed to them were not found either on the person of Muhammad Hussain, deceased, or Shah P.I, complainant. If ultimately it is found that the respondents shared common intention with the principal offenders, they may be convicted for constructive liability but at this stage the orders passed by the courts below cannot be regarded as being violative of law or perverse.