1996 P Cr (PLP)

Adrian Aslam Qureshi for the State. A case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. was registered against the petitioners and others vide F.I.R. No.63, dated 7-10-1995 at Police Station, Kotli Said Mir, District Sialkot.

2. It is contended that the petitioners while armed with pistol and .12 bore gun respectively made ineffective firing without causing any injury either to the deceased or anyone else. Hence they had a case of further investigation particularly when they were found innocent in three successive investigations conducted by the police.

3. Lastly it was contended that fire-arms attributed to the petitioners have not been recovered, which further show that they were implicated falsely.

4. The bail petition is opposed on the ground that both the petitioners are named in the F.I.R., and had participated in the occurrence alongwith the main accused who had caused injuries to the deceased. In such a situation, the petitioners were vicariously liable alongwith the main accused. The investigation conducted by the senior police officers i.e. S.P. and D.I.-G. had linked the accused with the occurrence and they were accordingly challaned to face the trial.

5. Lastly it was contended that the prosecution has ocular account of occurrence to support the case against the petitioners and as such they have no valid ground for bail.

6. I have considered the foregoing arguments, and have gone through the record. The perusal of F.I.R. clearly shows that both the petitioners were named in the F.I.R. and had been firing at the time of occurrence. The F.I.R. further reveals that all the accused had been firing at the spot for a pretty long time even after the deceased was done to death by the main accused namely Bashir alias Fauji, Rafiq and Sajjad alias Papu with their respective weapons. In such a situation, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not vicariously liable with the main accused for the murder of deceased. Though investigation agencies have given two different opinions regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the case, but ultimately it was decided that the petitioners should be sent up to face the trial. In such a situation, the opinion of the police about the guilt or innocence of the petitioners would not be relevant at this stage particularly when there is a set of eye-witnesses to support the prosecution version as contained in the F.I.R. The mere fact that the police was unable to recover the weapons of offence from the petitioners would not make it a case of further inquiry nor would entitle the petitioners to bail on that ground because the deeper appreciation about the merits of the case cannot be made at this stage, lest it may prejudice the trial.

7. The petitioners have no case for bail at present. The petition is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./M-157-L Bail refused.