' The applicants are facing trial in Crime No,142 of 2002, registered under sections 386,506-B, 427, 353 and 34, P.P.C. Read with section 324 Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1979, lodged at Taimoria Police Station, Karachi (Central).
2. The complainant Barkat Ali lodged the said F.I.R. Stating therein that he resides at the address given in the F.I.R. And carry on business of Chicken Broast in his shop. On 10-7-2002 at about 2-10 a.m. He was present in his shop when accused, (1) Zoomaur-Rehman, (2) Wasif-ur-Rehman, (3)
Kashif-ur-Rehman son of Asif-ur-Rehman and (4) Shahnawaz Khan alias Shanoo son of Shoukat Ali, came in his shop having firearms in their hands. Zooma-ur-Rehman asked him to give money (Bhatta) to them, otherwise they would kill him and would not allow him to run any business and with that they started destroying things in the shop. Meanwhile, police party came. The complainant told the police that these persons were asking for money (Bhatta) and they had damaged things lying in his shop. When police party came down they started firing on the complainant and the police party and created hindrance in the Government duty. Meanwhile police fired three/four shots in the air and caught hold of the accused and recovered one revolver of .32 bore with three live rounds from the right hand of accused Zooma-ur-Rehman and two empties were also recovered from him. From the right hand of accused Wasif-ur-Rehman one T.T.
Pistol, three live cartridges and three empties were recovered. When licence was asked from them, they could not produce the same, police arrested them on the spot. Two more accused Shahnawaz alias Shanoo and Kashif-urRehman ran away alongwith their, weapons. Police took into custody the live rounds and empties and recovered revolver, T.T.. Pistol alongwith empties which were fired by police.
3. I have heard Mr. Shahadat Awan, on behalf of the applicants and Mr. Javed Akhtar, represented the State.
4. Learned counsel for the ,applicants urged that the applicants are respectable citizen of Pakistan; that the applicant Zoomaur-Rehrhan is an elected Councillor of UC-5, North Nazimabad, that the accused Wasuf-urRehman and Kashif-ur-Rehman are the brothers of Zooma-ur-Rehman whereas accused Shahnawaz is their neighbourer. The learned counsel has produced identity card of applicant Zooncia-ur-Rehman, issued by Election Commission of Pakistan, in support of his submission. He has also contended that the applicant Zoorna-ur-Rehman and Wasifur-Rehman, are running business of Electronic in the name and Style of Rehman Traders, situated at Block L.
North Nazimabad, Karachi, that the applicant Shahnawaz is serving with Messrs. Falco Technology, Tariq Road, Karachi. The learned counsel stated that the complainant is supporter of political rival of applicants and with the connivance of the area police managed to lodge this false F.I.R. He has further stated that it is a case of ineffective firing and there are general allegations against the applicants above named. Lastly, he stated that the alleged incident is shown to have taken place in the odd hours of night.
5. To support his above arguments he has placed reliance on the cases of Sardar Muhammad and 4 others. v. The State (1977 SCM R 326). Rab Nawaz v. The State (1990 SCM R 1085): Muhammad Siddique v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 729) and Ghulam Murtaza v. The State (2001 PCr.LJ 1691).
6. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed to the grant of bail to the applicants/accused as it appears from the record that firing was exchanged between the applicants and the Police Officials and fire- arms alongwith live cartridges were also recovered from the possession of the applicants/accused on the spot. The police also has taken into custody empty cartridges from scene of incident.
7. I have given my due deliberation on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel before me and have gone with their assistance the record available on record.
8. The sections under which the applicants/accused have been charged are not compoundable and the act committed by the applicants/accused does not cover under section 386, P.P.C. But comes within the ambit of section 385, P.P.C. Under the said section the sentence is up to 2 years only which is not compoundable. Even no amount has been shown to have recovered from the possession of the applicants/accused.
9. Under these circumstances, the case of the applicants/accused necessitates further inquiry.
Accordingly, concession of bail is given to the applicants/accused, who are granted bail upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each and P.R. Bond on the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.