2008 P Cr (PLP)

FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.

The petitioners, seek post-arrest bail, in a case F.I.R. No.97 of 2008, dated 3-3-2008, offence under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. registered at- Police Station, Khushab.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel, that the petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention; that no recovery was effected from the petitioners; that during the investigation police found the petitioners as having armed with Sotas. The only allegation against the petitioners is of Lalkara and the petitioners have not caused any injury to the deceased or to any other person and that co-accused have already been released on bail by the learned trial Court and the case of the petitioners is at par with that of those co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail.

3. Conversely, learned D.P.-G. as well as learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed this bail petition contending that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role and the petitioner is involved in an heinous offence, hence not entitled for concession of bail.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Admittedly the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role. During the investigation, the police has also declared the petitioners as guilty of the offence. It is entirely erroneous to think that any rule of law to the effect that a person who does not cause injuries to the deceased, cannot be burdened with constructive liability at the time of considering the question of bail. The question is essentially one which has to be determined on the basis of the facts of each case, available on the record at the time when the question of bail comes up for consideration. If on the allegation appearing on the record the conditions set out in the provisions of law spelling out constructive liability are made out, then it cannot be said that the accused concerned is not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Reference can be made to the case of Munawar v. The State 1981 SCMR 1092. Question of vicarious liability for murder can be taken into consideration even at bail stage in the light of material on record. Accused found to be vicariously liable would be disentitled to bail when there was no reason as to why they should be falsely implicated. The petitioners have been arrested in this case on 14-3-2008. There is sufficient material available on the record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. In this view of the matter, it appears that it is not a fit case for grant of post-arrest bail.

6. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./M-227/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.