2006 PLP 2497 (YLR)

NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.

The applicant is facing trial in Crime No.69 of 2005 of Police Station, Chak, District Shikarpur, registered under sections 302, 337-H(2), P.P.C. ??????? The allegation against the applicant is that on, 2-10-2005 at 0115 hours he being armed with a gun along with co-accused Danglo, Mehar, both armed with K.K., Adyo, Latif, both with T.T. Pistol, Ali with gun and two unidentified persons with hatchet and lathi came at the house of the complainant Imam Buz Chachar and co-accused Ali committed murder of Godho Chachar by making gunshot at him. ?????? ????? Bail application was moved before the trial Court which was rejected for the reason that applicant was named in the F.I.R. and that section 460, P.P.C. would be applicable and by virtue of its application every member of accused party is responsible for the acts of his companion. ???????? The learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. was lodged after delay of four hours, no specific role has been assigned to the applicant, enmity between the parties is established, the statements of P.Ws. were recorded after 24 hours without any explanation or justification. He further submits that vicarious liability cannot be determined at this stage and the applicant has made out a case of further enquiry. ???????? Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, the learned State counsel, submits that the role of firing was assigned to other co-accused and the allegation against applicant is of firing in air. The deceased got one injury attributed to co-accused Ali. The learned State counsel conceded to the bail plea raised on behalf of the applicant. ??????? I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ?????? The allegation against the applicant is presence at the time of murder of Godho Chachar, firing in air and raising slogans. Though the applicant was allegedly armed with gun but has not caused any injury to the deceased. The presence of the applicant at the place of wardat and his involvement in the commission of the offence will be determined at the trial. The case requires further enquiry for the purpose of determination of vicarious liability and sharing common intention. From the material available on record it appears that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of non-bailable offence. ????? I, therefore, allow this bail application and release the applicant on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S-52/K ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????Bail granted.