M. NAEEMULLAH KHAN SHERWANI, J.-- Ghulam Nabi alias Bao-petitioner along with three others, namely, Muhammad Sharif, Shaukat and Ghulam Mustafa is involved in crime Report No. 208, dated 7.6.2001 under Sections 302/34, PPC, registered at Police Station, Ishtar Colony, Lahore, at the behest of Barkat Ali, father of Muhammad Azam deceased.
2. Motive behind the occurrence was that one and a half year earlier Muhammad Azam deceased had produced a wound on the person of Ghulam Nabi-petitioner by making a pistol shot regarding which a case under section 324, PPC stood registered. Later on both the sides had arrived at a compromise.
3. The petitioner could be arrested by the police on 19.7.2001, and was sent to the judicial lock-up when no longer required for further investigation. He preferred his application for grant of post- arrest bail before learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, who made over the same to a learn ed Additional Sessions Judge for disposal thereof in accordance with law. The said learned Judge after taking every thing into his full consideration dismissed the same, by virtue of his order dated 9.5.2002, on the basis of multiple reasons embodied in the order itself. Now he has approached this Court by filing the instant petition seeking same relief.
4. learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner was not assigned the role of causing any injury upon the deceased in the first information report and only part played by him was that he alone with Ghulam Mustafa co-accused held Muhammad Azam deceased and took him toward outer wall of the house of one Malik Liaqat where Shaukat accused fired through his pistol striking Muhammad Azam near his heart; that Muhammad Sharif, father of the petitioner, is alleged to have abetted the crime in question; that no recover has been made at his instance and entire family, members stood implicated in this case because of animosity; that Muhammad Sharif father of the petitioner has already been allowed bail by this Court on 15.2.2002; that the petitioner was behind the bars for the last about ten months and that trial has not commenced so far.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel of the State submits that the petitioner had a question; that he along with Ghulam Mustafa, brought him forcibly near the wail of the house of one Malik Uaqat, where his co-accused 'fired at him through his pistol; that three witnesses, namely, Niamat Ali, Shahid Hussain and Jahangir, attributed a fatal injury to the petitioner in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C, made by them on the very day of occurrence; and that they forcefully alleged that Ghulam Nabi-petitioner delivered a brickbat at Muhammad Azam deceased, striking right side of his chest. According to learned counsel, this injury was declared fatal by the doctor, who performed autopsy on dead-body of Muhammad Azam deceased; that the challan has already been submitted before the Court having jurisdiction in the matter; that copies of all the relevant documents as envisaged by the relevant provisions of Section 265-C, Cr.P.C, have been delivered to the accused and that now it is fixed for 29.6.2002 for framing of charge.
6. I have courteously heard and soberly considered -respective arguments of both the sides.
Admittedly, Niamat Ali, Shahid Hussain and Jahangir PWs have been attributed the fatal blow by throwing a brickbat .At Muhammad Azam deceased to Ghulam Naib-petitioner. The complainant also in his supplementary statement did the same. Deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken at this stage. Prima facie, there is overwhelming evidence with the prosecution-to substantiate charge, against the petitioner and others. Muhammad Sharif, who was allowed bail by this Court, was simply alleged to have abetted the crime in question. I see no good reason to allow bail to the petitioner.
7. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
8. Trial Court is, however, directed to concluded trial of The case expeditiously under intimation to this Court.