2005 PLP 112 (YLR)

Gauhar Zaman Khan Kundi for Petitioner. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry D.A. G. for the State. Farid Ullah Shah for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 2004. Petitioner Shahzad Khan is one of the accused persons involved in case F.I.R. No.103 dated 12-6-2004 registered at Police Station, Domail, District Bannu under section 324/34, P.P.C. at the instance of Asghar Khan complainant. The petitioner has approached this Court for his release on bail on refusal of the same from two forums below vide orders dated 1-7-2004 and 16-7-2004.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he on 12-6-2004 at 630 hours at Azim Kalley Chauk on Highway, sharing common intention with co-accused, attempted to commit Qatl-i-Amd of complainant Asghar Khan and his brother Akhtar Khan by firing at them.

3. Mr. Gauhar Zaman Khan. Kundi, Advocate for the petitioner contended that no effective role has been attributed to the petitioner in the commission of crime and that there is no ocular or circumstantial evidence which could connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. Reliance was placed on Allah Nawaz v. The State another 2004 S C M R 1175; Aftab Hussain v. The State 2004 SCMR 1467; Muhammad v. The State 1998 S C M R 454 and Malang Said v. The State and another 2004 PCr.LJ 1087.

4. Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Faridullah Shah, Advocate for the complainant opposed the bail application and maintained that though the petitioner is charged for ineffective firing but the petitioner has actively participated in the crime and thus, he has been refused the concession of bail for cogent reasons. To substantiate the plea, reliance was placed on Raja and 2 others v. The State 1992 MLD 2467.

5. It is settled principle of law that at bail granting stage the material available on record is to be sifted through in order to establish whether prima facie the petitioner before the Court can be connected with the crime in question and hence, no detailed inquiry is to be concluded by the Court.

6. It is also settled law that mere presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence is no ground to refuse bail on the basis of vicarious liability which of course would be proved or disproved at the stage of the trial.

7. In the instant case, the petitioner is alleged to have fired ineffectively on the complainant and his brother. The case of the petitioner is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and it is a case of further inquiry. Moreover, investigation in the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. He is in jail ever since his arrest on 12-6-2004. In such a situation, I allow this petition and order the release of petitioner on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in a sum of Rs.3,00,000 (Rupees three lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Deputy Judicial Magistrate. H.B.T./258/P Bail granted.