2009 PLP 1421 (YLR)

KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.

The petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.206/2008 dated 3-3-2008 registered under sections 302, 324, 337-L(2), 148, 149, P.P.C. at Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad.

2. Precise allegations against the petitioners as per narration of F.I.R. are that they along with their accomplices had launched an attack on the complainant party and had caused injuries to them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners had not actively participated in the occurrence as one of the petitioners namely Akhtar was present empty handed at the place of occurrence and Liaquat, petitioner No.1 was simply armed with Danda but had not caused any injury to the complainant. He further submits that one simple injury is attributed to Akhtar which has been declared as 337-L(ii), which is a bailable offence. He further submits that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. He further argues that it was a free fight in which it was not really known as to which one was the aggressor party, therefore, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt, as cross version of the petitioner had already been recorded subsequent to the registration of instant F.I.R.

4. Learned D.P.G. opposes bail application of the petitioners and submits that both the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role and they are vicariously liable to cause injury to the complainant as they had shared common intention and both of them have been held guilty in police investigation as well.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.G. and have also perused the record. The petitioners are no doubt nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role but Akhtar, petitioner No.2, was empty handed at the place of occurrence and no role has been assigned to him and no recovery has been effected from him as well. As far as Liaquat, petitioner No.1, is concerned he was simply armed with Danda and simple injury has been attributed to him which has been declared as 337-.L(ii) which is bailable in nature. As far as argument for the learned D.P.G. regarding petitioners being vicariously liable and sharing common intention is concerned, I am afraid they are not liable to be tried under sections 324 and 302, P.P.C. because had there been any intention of committing murder of the deceased, they could have also caused grievous injuries as well, therefore, to their extent they are not liable to be tried under section 302 or 324, P.P.C. as one of the petitioners was present empty handed at the place of occurrence. Above all free fight took place between the parties and it was not really known as to which one was the aggressor party and it is to be seen at the time of trial of the case on the basis of evidence as to which party had launched attack first.

6. Under the circumstances, petitioners' case is that of further inquiry into their guilt. I, therefore, admit both the petitioners to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand), each with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. Petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./L-4/L Bail granted.