1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J.---The applicant is facing trial in Crime No,29 of 2002 of Police Station Rustam, District Shikarpur, registered under sections 324, 148, 149, 114, P.P.C.
2. ' The allegation against the applicant is that he being armed with a gun was a member of the party, who fired and injured Umed Ali, the complainant.
3. ' The bail application was moved before the trial Court, which was rejected on the consideration that the applicant was sharing common object with co-accused, and that applicant remained fugitive of law and his case is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Haibat.
4. ' The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted thattheF.I.R. Was lodged with an unexplained delay of eight hours, the other co-accused Haibat is granted bail and that the case of the applicant is on better footing, no overt act was attributed to the applicant and mere abscondence is not sufficient to deprive the applicant from the concession of bail.
5. ' Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State Counsel, has submitted that there is no allegation of firing against the applicant and the only role assigned to him is his presence at the time of wardat armed with gun. The learned State Counsel has conceded the bail plea raised on behalf of the applicant, on the ground that no allegation of firing has been levelled against the applicant and question of vicarious liability and sharing common intention is to be decided at the stage of trial.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before me.
7. The allegation against the applicant is of his presence being armed with gun at the time of commission of offence. Though the applicant was allegedly armed with a gun but has not caused any injury to the complainant. 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 inquiry for the purpose of determination of vicarious liability and sharing common object.
8. From the material available on record it appears that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is guilty of a non-bailable offence. I, therefore, allow this bail application and release the applicant on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 and P.R.
9. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.