2002 PLP 3641 (YLR)

Syed Shehbaz Ali Rizvi for Petitioner. Jamil Ahmad Chuhan for the State. Date of hearing: 28th November, 2001. As a result of the case bearing F.I.R. No. 127 of 2001 dated 18‑6‑2001 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Chowbara, District Layyah, Muhammad Hussain petitioner stands involved in the allegation that at the time of occurrence which took place on 18‑6‑2001 at about 3‑00 p.m. while armed with a gun .12 bore he alongwith his companions had embushed behind the bushes and the water drain came out and he alongwith co‑accused Tariq, Yasin, Muhammad Sharif, Irshad Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Saleem and Zafar Iqbal in furtherance of their common object fired towards the houses of the complainant party while his other companions Muhammad Hanif, Altaf Hussain and Abdul Salam inflicted injuries to Muhammad Ismail who died later on. The dispute in between the parties was over the land. So, at the instance of Muhammad Arshad son of the deceased the above said case was registered.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is an old man aged about 68 years so being infirm person his case falls within the proviso to subsection (4) of section 497, Cr.P.C., that ineffective firing is attributed to him meaning thereby he did not cause any injury to the deceased; that the question of vicarious liability is to be determined later on at the stage of trial; that there is a delay of about hours in lodging the report, therefore, in view of the circumstances as disclosed above it is a case of further enquiry. He referred to the cases reported in Saifullah v. The State (2001 PSC(Crl.) 317), Subedar Khan v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1559 Muhammad v. The State (1998 SCMR 454), Fraz Akram v. The State (1999 SCMR 1360) and Rana Muhammad Safdar v. Gulzar Ali alias Pappu and another (1999 PCr.LJ 1) which have been opposed by the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant.

3. As per contents of the F.I.R. one thing is admitted that the role of ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioner even to this extent that he alongwith his companions fired towards the houses of the complainant party and while opposing the arguments it was not contended that there were signs or firing on the houses of the complainant party. During arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner produced photo copy of the NIC of the petitioner which shows that the petitioner is aged about 68 years. No fatal injury is attributed to him and that the question of vicarious liability is to be determined later on at the stage of trial, therefore, it is a fit case for bail.

4. As a consequence of it Muhammad Hussain petitioner as admitted to bail in the sum of Rupees 1 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Layyah. Bail petition is accepted.

5. While accepting the bail bonds learned Sessions Judge concerned shall inform the petitioners for his attendance in the Court on a specific date so that his absence on date could be avoided and after submission of challan the petitioner shall continue appearing before the learned trial Court till the disposal of the case: S.M.A.H./M‑1449/L Bail granted.