2007 PLP 408 (YLR)

KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this bail petition contends that the petitioners have falsely been involved in this case, that although petitioners were armed with fire-arm yet not a single injury is 'attributed to them either on the person of the deceased or of the injured prosecution witnesses; that one person died while two persons from the petitioners' side received injuries that the whole family has been roped in this case that the case of the petitioners is one of further inquiry and that the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail.

2. On the other hand learned counsel for the State assisted by .complainant's learned counsel submits that the petitioners, who were armed with Sotas along with their co-accused, came from ten miles, reached at the spot and formed an unlawful assembly, raised Lalkaras, facilitated the murder of two persons and are vicariously liable for the said two murders, the injuries on the two injured of the petitioners' party were found to be false, Saleem Haider complainant stated that the police got his signatures on the blank papers and his mother has also stated to the said effect and that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail from this Court.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.

4. The fact remains that initially case vide F.I.R. No. 486 of 2005, dated 1-10-2005 under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. was registered on the statement of Saleem Haider against the complainant of the cross version. The only point involved in this petition is whether the petitioners, who allegedly reached at the spot along with their co-accused while armed with Sotas, caused any injury either on the person of the deceased the answer is "NO". About sixteen persons were made accused in this case, so, it appears a net has been widened to involve maximum number of family members as is very common in our society so that nobody should be left behind to pursue the case. Specific injuries are attributed to the co-accused who have committed the murder of the deceased. The question of vicarious liability to the extent of the petitioners, has to be adjudged by the learned trial Court on the basis Of evidence adduced before it, so, the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the complainant, qua sharing common intention by the petitioners, is not convincing one so far as grant of bail to the petitioners by this Court is concerned. In the afore-referred circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie, view that the petitioners have made out a case- falling under subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. and are entitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. H.B.T./M-723/L Bail granted.