1. ' F.I.R. No,91 of 1996, dated 7-6-1996 was got registered by one Ghulam Farid son of Shah Muhammad against the accused person named in the F.I.R., including the petitioners under section 302/324/337-A(ii)/337-A (iv)/337-F(i)/III/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Malka Hans, Pakpattan Sharif.
2. ' The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners alongwith co-accused while forming unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object made murderous assault on the complainant party and causing murder of Muhammad Sharif by the fire-arm of Muhammad Ali co-accused and the present petitioners caused number of injuries to Manzoor, Shahadat, Zahoor and Ameer respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioners were falsely involved in this case.
3. Qasim and Ghulam Farid received injuries on vital part of the body specially the injuries received by Ghulam Farid petitioner were on the head and were declared grievous and dangerous to life. It is further contended that Qasim Ali also received two injuries on his head in all the eleven injuries were sustained by the accused parties while complainant party suffered 10 injuries; fire arm injuries sustained by Muhammad Sharif is attributed to Muhammad Ali while second fire attributed to Shah Behram. It is further contended that in successive investigation carried out by different police officers the complainant party have been declared aggressors. Learned counsel contends that in the above circumstances the case of the petitioners is of further inquiry and the petitioners are .Entitled to the bail. In the light of the investigations conducted by different police agencies wherein the complainant party had been declared aggressors the petitioners are entitled to this behalf at the bail stage. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries attributed to the petitioners do not fall within the prohibitory clause and all simple in nature.
4. ' The learned Additional Advocate-General assisted by the learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition and submits that the occurrence took place on 7-6-1996 at 8-30 a.m. While the F.I.R., was promptly lodged on the same day at 10-40 a.m. And all the petitioners having been named .In the F.I.R. Their presence at the spot has also not been denied. The learned Additional Advocate-General further submits that F.I.R., also shows that the petitioner/accused party participated in the occurrence after making full preparation and every accused has been attributed with a specific role. Finally the Additional Advocate-General submits that the trial has already been commenced and the charge has been framed. At this stage the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as on behalf of the State and have also perused the record of the case. The petitioners have been named in the F.I.R., which was promptly lodged, and they alongwith co-accused formed and unlawful assembly and while sharing their common object committed the murder of Muhammad Sharif and also injured P. Ws. Manzoor, Shahadat, Zahoor and Amir and that too on the vital part of the body. The injuries sustained by the petitioners stands explained in the F.I.R. It is also to be noted, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in different investigation conducted by the police, the complainant have been declared aggressors but still the petitioners have not been declared innocent by the police. They have participated after making full preparation and their presence has also not been denied at the time of the occurrence. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable inasmuch as the dictum laid down in the above said rulings, is to the effect that accused were declared innocent by the police and were placed in I column No,3. It is the considered view that the opinion recorded by the police is not binding upon the Court but the same has got only persuasive value.
6. ' In the light of the above discussion this petition has got no merit and the same is dismissed.
7. However, as submitted by the learned Additional Advocate-General the trial has already been commenced and the charge has been framed. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial expeditiously preferably within three months.