' The petitioner Shah Muhammad is seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,152 of 1998, dated 18-4- 1998 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bahawalpur for the offences under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. At the instance of complainant Ghulam Mahmud Ali for an occurrence of the same day, at 12-00 noon, in which Muhammad Nadeem, paternal-cousin of the complainant got killed due to fire-arm injuries which are attributed to co-accused Muhammad Afzal and the complainant was also injured by Muhammad Afzal with his rifle. The allegation against the petitioner is that he brought the co-accused on his tractor to the place of occurrence and raised a Lalkara and asked co-accused Muhammad Afzal to bring rifle from the factory, upon which Muhammad Afzal brought rifle 222 and fired three shots at Nadeem deceased and on the asking of the petitioner, he took a shot at the complainant and injured his left shoulder.
2. The petitioner was arrested on 29-4-1998, the investigation is complete and challah has been submitted against all the accused. The petitioner's application for the grant of bail has been dismissed by the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities on 13-7-1998.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State, complainant and have also perused the record.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only a proverbial Lalkara is attributed to the petitioner, the petitioner was empty-handed and did not cause any injury to anyone, has been falsely involved due to the fact that at the relevant time co-accused Nazar Muhammad was sitting with the petitioner on the petitioner's tractor when an altercation took place between the co-accused and the complainant party, otherwise the petitioner has no connection with the co-accused and the story as narrated in the F.I.R. Shows that the complainant party was the aggressor party. In the end, it has been submitted that all the facts and circumstances show that, to the extent of the petitioner, it is a case of further inquiry.
5. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant who is also present in person, have opposed the petition and it has been submitted that tractor and trolley on which the co-accused were transported, belonged to the petitioner and it was being driven by the petitioner and, thus, he played an active role in the commission of the offence and it is not a case merely of raising Lalkara.
It has further been urged that the petitioner has been involved in many criminal cases and even now is facing trial in case F.I.R. No,3 of 1996.
6. is nothing on the record to suggest false involvement because admittedly there is no previous .
Enmity between the petitioner and the complainant party. The facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Indicate active participation of the petitioner in the commission of offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And we are also clear in our mind that it is not a case of further inquiry.
7. In view of the above mentioned, we see no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.