2010 PLP 185 (MLD)

ARSHAD MAHMOOD, J.

Shabbir Ahmad and Khan Muhammad petitioners seek their bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.161 of 2009, dated 25-4-2009 offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Harappa, District Shaiwal.

2. Precisely allegation against the petitioners is that they along with their co-accused committed double murder of Sana daughter of the petitioner as well as one Arshad.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Khan Muhammad petitioner was attributed the role of proverbial lalkara whereas mere presence and joint role of catching hold of Arshad deceased was attributed to Shabbir Ahmad petitioner. States further that Khan Muhammad petitioner has been involved in this case along with his three sons in a double murder. Learned counsel argued with vehemence that Khan Muhammad petitioner is above fifty years of age and has been assigned the role of lalkara whereas no independent overt' act has been attributed to Shabbir Ahmad petitioner. In support of his submissions he relied upon "Naseer Ahmad v. The State 2008 YLR 2925, "Shah Nawaz v. The State" 2008 PCr.LJ 1507, "Shah Nawaz and others v. The State and another" (2008 SCMR 1436)" Muhammad Aqeel v. State and another" 2009 YLR 889 and "Sabir Hussain v. The State" (2009 PCr.LJ 1327).

4. The application has been opposed by learned DDPP on the ground that petitioners are named in a prompt F.I.R., reporting a double murder. It was further submitted that the offence against the petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause of subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. It was lastly argued on behalf of the State that the petitioners have been found guilty during investigation.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned DDPP and examined the record.

6. Petitioners are undisputedly named in the F.I.R. out joint role of catching hold is assigned to Shabbir Ahmad petitioner whereas Khan Muhammad petitioner has been saddled with the responsibility of proverbial lalkara. No injury upon the body of any of the two deceased persons has been attributed to the petitioners. Question of vicarious liability can only be resolved at trial after recording evidence, which makes their case one of further inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. They are behind the bars and no more required for the purpose of investigation, therefore, they are entitled to the concession of bail. Resultantly this application is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate Duty Magistrate.

7. Before parting with this order it is clarified that in case the petitioners misuse the concession of bail in any way, complainant will be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail before the learned trial Court. H.B.T./S-264/L Bail allowed.