2003 PLP 1159 (MLD)

Petitioner Lallo and Riaz through two separate petitions bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.3372-B of 2002 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.367-B of 2003 respectively have sought for post-arrest bail in the Case F.I.R. No.393 dated 2-8-2002 under sections 302/324/337 A(i)/337-F(i)/337(H)(ii)/337-L(ii)/148/149, P. P. C. registered with Police Station Luddan, District Vehari.

2. As these petitions have arisen out of one and the same case, hence, are being disposed of by this single order.

3. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 2-8-2002 at about 1-00 p.m. Muzaffar armed with rifle, Zahoor with .12 bore double barrel gun, Manzoor with Sota, Riaz with Sota and Lallo with Sota in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them on FIAT Tractor 640 came to the complainant's house. Muzaffar alighted down from the Tractor and fired with rifle at Muhammad Afzal, the nephew of the complainant, which hit on his right side of the abdomen and went through the same. On the same he fell down. Manzoor inflicted Sota blow to Muhammad Ayyaz which hit on his right shoulder. Riaz inflicted Sota blow to Muhammad Imtiaz hitting on the back side of his head. Lallo inflicted Sota blow to Muhammad Imran hitting on his right shoulder. Manzoor inflicted Sota blow to Muhammad Imtiaz hitting on his right upper-arm. Riaz inflicted Sota blow to Muhammad Ayyaz hitting on his left index finger. Lallo inflicted Sota blow to Muhammad Imran hitting on his back. On their hue and cry, Muhammad Iqbal and Ali Muhammad the brothers of the complainant were attracted there. On seeing them Zahoor started firing with his gun in the air and threatened that if anybody came near them, he would be killed. Due to fear, they could not go near them. The accused after injuring Muhammad Afzal, etc. went away on the tractor with their respective weapons.

4. The motive behind the occurrence is that Zahoor Ahmad accused had wanted to pass his tractor in their land but they did not allow him to do so. On grudge over the same they committed the above act.

5. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner Lallo that he has falsely been roped in; that he had no community of interest with his co-accused to do away with the deceased; that the mere simple injury to P.W. Muhammad Imran has been ascribed to him; that the question of his vicarious liability for the murder of the deceased will be seen at the trial; and that he is behind the bars and previous non-convict. In respect of bail plea, reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Akbar and 4 others v. The State and another (1978 SCMR 7) and Sultan and 2 others v. The State (1978 PCr.LJ 194 Lahore).

6. As regards the petitioner Riaz, it has been contended that he has falsely been roped in that he allegedly has caused Shajah Khafifa to Muhammad Imtiaz on the back of his head and another injury on his back; that the question of his vicarious liability will be determined at the time of trial of murder; and that he is behind the bars and a previous non-convict.

7. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petitions on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; and that they are vicariously liable for the murder of the deceased.

8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.

9. The fact remains that no injury to the deceased has been attributed to them. The petitioner Lallo has allegedly caused Sota blow to P.W. Muhammad Imran on his right shoulder and back of chest. Riaz petitioner has been ascribed Sota blow to Imtiaz P.W. on the back of his head and another to Muhammad Ayyaz on his left index finger. It has not been denied by the prosecution and the complainant's side that the head injury of P.W. Imtiaz has been declared as Shajah Khafifa. The question of their vicarious liability for the murder of deceased would definitely be gone into at the trial. Th6ir case, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into their guilt. In this regards, reliance is placed upon the esteemed authorities referred to above i.e. Muhammad Akbar and 4 others v. The State and another (1978 SCMR 7) and Sultan and 2 others v. The State (1978 PCr.LJ 194 Lahore).

11. They are behind the bars and stated to be previous non -convicts.

12. In these circumstances, they (petitioners) are entitled to bail. Thus, both the petitions are accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari/trial Court. H.B.T./L-69/L Bail granted.