1995 PLP 779 (MLD)

Muhammad Taqi Khan for Petitioners. C.M. Latif for the State. Abdul Hameed and Liaqat Ali petitioners seek post‑arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No.135/92 dated 25‑8‑1992 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered against them and two others at Police Station City Sangla Hill, District Sheikhupura, at the instance of Shaukat Ali, complainant. The allegation against the petitioners is that they caught hold of Arshad Ali deceased son of the complainant while their co‑accused namely Mukhtar Ahmad and Khalid Ahmad inflicted injuries with Chhuri and knife respectively on the deceased who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The petitioners alongwith their co‑accused had earlier applied for their bail which was refused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, on 22‑12‑1993; hence, this petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the only allegation against the‑petitioners is that they had caught hold of the deceased and, thus facilitated the commission of the offence; that the petitioners were empty‑handed at the time of occurrence and there is no evidence on record to suggest that they had shared the common intention with their co‑accused; that the prosecution has mala fidely implicated whole of the family of the petitioners, including old father and his three sons, so that no one is left to pursue this matter in the Court; that the petitioners are in the judicial lock‑up for the last about one year and the trial has not yet commenced. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed this petition, by submitting that the petitioners have been named in the F.I.R. with specific role of catching hold of the deceased, as such, they stand vicariously liable for the act of their co‑accused. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. I feel persuaded to agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were empty‑handed at the time of alleged occurrence and only superfluous act of catching hold of the deceased has been attributed to them, which, in the circumstances of the case, stands belied by the presence of injuries on the hand of the deceased, thus, revealing thereby that the deceased was free enough to defend himself by raising his hands. The question, whether the petitioners had shared the common intention with their co‑accused and facilitated the commission of the offence, being subject to further inquiry, would be assessed by the learned trial Court after recording evidence, as such, the case of the petitioners would fall in the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. which would entitle them to the concession of bail. Prima facie, no reasonable grounds are made out to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime. I, therefore, without going deep into the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, allow bail to the petitioners, subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. N.H.Q./A‑743/L Bail allowed.