' The petitioners seek post-arrest bail in a case vide F.I.R. No,340, dated 1-10-1999 under sections 148, 302, 337-H(ii) and 149, P. P . C . Registered at Police Station Dina, District Jhelum.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 30-9-1999 at about 9-00 p.m. While the complainant alongwith other family members and present in his house, Muhammad Safdar, Allah Ditta, Shafqat alias Shafqat, Amjad Mahmood, Muhammad Akhtar, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Arshad and Irfan arrived there. Muhammad Safdar and Amjad Mahmood were armed with .12 bore gun and rifle respectively and they fired in the air whereas Masood Ahmad pelted a brick-bat hitting Mst.
Qamar-un-Nisa on her head. The other accused are stated to have pelted stones on the house of the complainant. It is further stated that various residents of the locality were attracted on fire shots. The motive behind this occurrence is that on 29-9-1999 Qaisar Mahmood was given beating by Masood Ahmad and Afran accused, against whom an application was moved with the police.
Feeling annoyed by the said application, the instant occurrence is alleged to have taken place.
3. The petitioners Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Arshad applied for bail, out of whom Muhammad Arshad was granted bail whereas bail application of Muhammad Akram was dismissed vide order, dated 11-12-1999. Later on the other petitioners applied for bail which relief was declined to them vide order, dated 21-1-2000. Hence the instant petition.
4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that out of the person nominated in the F.I.R., the role attributed to Muhammad Safdar and Amjad Mahmood is that of firing in the air whereas a specific role of pelting a brick-bat upon Mst. Qamar-un-Nisa is attributed to Masood Ahmad, that Allah Ditta, Shafqat, Muhammad Akram, Muhammad Arshad and Masood Akhtar have been assigned a role of pelting bricks on the house of the complainant, that only one piece of brick has been recovered which is alleged to be blood-stained, that two empties have been recovered on 1- 10-1999 but the same were not sent for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory with the guns recovered from Muhammad Safdar and Amjad Mahmood on 27-10-1999 and 31-10-1999. He thus, submits that case of the petitioners requires further probe, as such they be admitted to bail.
He placed reliance upon Muhammad Anwar Khan and 2 others v. The State 1988 PCr.LJ 304 to contend that in a case in which ineffective firing has been attributed to accused and gun recovered from them not proved to have been used in commission of crime, question whether accused took part in offence required further probe and bail was granted. He has also relied upon Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCM R 1125 to contend that in case in which simple blunt injuries have been attributed to the accused; they have been granted bail. He further submits that offence does not fall within the purview of section 302, P.P.C. As keeping in view the circumstances of the case it is evident that even the assailant Masood Ahmad had no intention to commit the murder of Mst. Qamar-un-Nisa and as such offence at the most falls under section 316, P.P.C.
6. Conversely, bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the State. It is argued by learned counsel for the complainant that the mere fact that all the petitioners were duly armed at the time of occurrence shows that they shared common intention and as such, are constructively liable for the commission of offence charged against them, and this fact can be taken into consideration at bail stage, that although no specific injury has been attributed to Allah Ditta, Shafaqat, Muhammad Akram, Irfan and Masood Akhtar, yet their very presence at the time of occurrence reveals that they had shared common intention with Masood Ahmad, Amjad Mahmood and Muhammad Safdar, out of whom Muhammad Safdar and Amjad Mahmood were armed with .12 bore gun and rifle respectively and Masood Ahmad has been attributed a specific injury resulting into the death of Mst. Qamar-un-Nisa. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon Muhammad Rashid v. The State 1979 SCM R 92 and Munawar v. The State 1981 SCM R 1092. He has also relied upon Anwar and another v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 1626 and Qamar Abbas alias Goshy v. The State 1985 PCr.LJ 3019 in support of his submission.
7. A perusal of the facts reveals that at the time of alleged occurrence, Muhammad Safdar and Amjad Mahmood are stated to be armed with a .12 bore gun and a rifle respectively and they are stated to have resorted to ineffective firing. Their participation in the occurrence is also evident from the fact that the weapons were recovered from them and the empties were also secured from the spot. The participation of Masood Ahmad stands corroborated from the medical evidence as well as evidence of recovery of blood-stained piece of brick with which he is alleged to have caused injury to Mst. Qamar-un-Nisa. Thus, Muhammad Safdar, Amjad Mahmood and Masood Ahmad are not entitled to the relief of bail at this stage and their request is declined. So far as Allah Ditta, Shafaqat, Muhammad Akram, Arfan and Masood Akhtar are concerned, they have been attributed a general--allegation of pelting stones on the house of the complainant. There is no corroboration of this general allegation. Thus, case of the prosecution to the extent of Allah Ditta, Shafaqat, Muhammad Akram, Arfan and Muhammad Akhtar requires further probe. Accordingly, they are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.