1970 P Cr (PLP)

has merely stated about the presence of Nazar Muhammad but has not assigned any part to him. He has also resiled from that part of the statement in the F. U R. where the arrest of the? applicant is mentioned. He further referred to the allegations against him by Muhammad Ali who stated that he had fired shots at him though the medical evidence belied his evidence and according to the doctor who examined him, he had only incised injuries. In these circumstances he has pressed for grant of bail to Nazar Muhammad. I do not agree with his contention for his presence is prima facie made out as a member of an unlaw-????????????? ful assembly; he had injuries and was arrested from the spot though Shah Nazar has not supported this aspect in his evidence As a member of an unlawful assembly he would be vicariously liable and his participation cannot be minimised merely because no part has been assigned to him. Mr. Pirzada next argued that he was also a labourer and his presence cannot be taken to be one of a member of the unlawful assembly as it was the meeting of the labourers and it was for that reason that he was there. I can only agree with him if I were to the evidence at this stage and come to a finding that he ' not come along with the other applicants and the accused in taxi to commit rioting. The appraisal of evidence will be the Court and I will not do it at this stage. I do see therefore any substance in the above contentions urged the grant of bail' to him. As against applicant Ghulam Muhammad, these two witnesses have implicated him for causing knife injuries to the deceased and the learned counsel for the applicants has not any cogent reason for the grant of bail to him. I would therefore reject the request for bail to him as well. Shimroz.Khan has not been implicated by Shah Nazar Khan Muhammad Ali has assigned‑to him the part of causing knife injuries to the deceased. His participation therefore in the crime also prima facie made out. There now remains the fifth applicant, namely Rahimdad. His name was not mentioned in the F. I. R. nor, has he been implicated by any of these two witnesses. He was not put to any identification test; his bail application was rejected by the learned Single Judge on the ground that he had an injury on his person. The Supreme Court also refused leave against that order at let, it for reconsideration when some evidence was recorded.? However, the two witnesses so far examined have not implicated Him, his name, is also not mentioned in the F. I. R. The only circumstance of any injury is not sufficient‑for refusing bail to him no learned counsel for the State and the complainant frankly conceded that his case is distinguishable and that they cannot seriously oppose the grant of bail to him. However, when further evidence is recorded it will be open to the prosecution to move for the cancellation of his bail. I may observe here at whatever I have expressed in this order is merely tentative and could not be taken to be an expression on the merits of the case. In view my discussion I would refuse bail to applicants Nazar Muahammad Ghulam Muhammad Wali Muhammad and Shimroz Khan and would allow bail to Rahimdad in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfiction of the Inquiry Magistrate. The bail application is accordingly disposed of.