2005 PLP 976 (MLD)

Syed Muhammad Asad Abbas for Petitioner. Mahmood Kamal for the State with Sher Ali, S.I. with record Petitioner Bashir Ahmad and Zafar Iqbal seek post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.278 of 2004 dated 12‑7‑2004 under sections 324/337‑A(i) /337‑A(ii)/337‑F(iii)/337‑F(iv)/337‑F(v)/109/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Siray Sidhu District Khanewal on the complaint of Mian Faiz Munir.

2. Brief facts as per prosecution story narrated in the F.I.R. are that the present petitioners/accused armed with sotas along with other co accused armed with guns and pistols cams to the place of occurrence on a Dalla/wagon, made lalkara that they would take revenge of snatching bus stand from them. The allegation against the present petitioners/accused is that they gave injuries to the injured person with their sota along with others.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners/accused have not been attributed specific role; petitioners were arrested on 18‑9‑2004 and since then they are behind the bars; the investigation is complete and the petitioners are no more required by the Investigating Agency and that nothing has been recovered from the petitioners. He has relied on "Muhammad Haroon alias Haroon Rehman v. The State" (2004 SCMR 89).

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the accused persons launched murderous attack on the injured persons; the petitioners/accused are nominated in the F.I.R. and they are vicariously liable for the commission of offence.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. and they along with their co‑accused caused injuries on the person of injured Muhammad Ramzan and Rab Nawaz so, they are vicariously liable for the commission of offence under section 324, P.P.C Rab Nawaz injured received twelve injuries caused with fire‑arm while Muhammad Raman injured received six injuries with blunt weapons. Case of the present petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. So far as the case‑law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner concerned, each case has its own facts and circumstances. In that case the accused person was not nominated in the F.I.R. and no specific role was attributed to him. Furthermore, the injuries received by the victim were also of different nature.

6. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/accused. Instant bail petition, is dismissed. H.B.T./B‑76/L Petition dismissed.