' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner Salamat Ali alias Bhutta through the instant petition has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,529 of 2005, dated 19-7-2005 under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Kahna, Lahore.
2. The allegation against the petitioner as per F.I.R. Is that of ineffective firing while armed with .222 gun along with his co-accused in furtherance of their common intention.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case with mala fide intention just to harass and blackmail him; that there is a delay of three days in lodging the F.I.R. Without explanation; that the role attributed to the petitioner is that of ineffective firing; that the petitioner is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation; that the trial has not yet commenced; that no motive is alleged against the petitioner and that the. Question of vicarious liability shall be determined at the trial stage. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585; Yaroo v. The State 2004 SCM R 864 and Faraz Akram v. The State 1999 SCM R 1360.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is involved in an heinous offence of murder, that previous enmity is admitted between the parties; that the case of the petitioner is not that of further inquiry and the challan has been submitted in the Court. Learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance on Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The State 1980 SCM R 203; Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another PLD 1989 SC 585; Rana Muhammad Safdar v. Gulzar Ali alias Papoo and another 1999 PCr.LJ 1 (Lahore); Allah Ditta and others v. The State 1990 SCM R 307; Ghulam Nabi v. The State 1996 SCM R 1023; Abdul Malik v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1816 (Karachi) and Muhammad Sadiq v. Sadiq and others PLD 1973 Quetta 4.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner although was stated to be armed with fire-arm but he has not caused any injury to the deceased or to any P.W. The fatal shot is attributed to his co-accused Niamat Ali. As per the allegation, the motive is not attributed to the petitioner. No overt act has been ascribed to the petitioner except that of ineffective firing. Although .222 rifle has A been recovered from the petitioner but during investigation no empty of said weapon was found at the place of occurrence.
The question regarding vicarious liability of the petitioner would be determined at the trial. In view of the matter, the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars and no more required for further investigation.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to this furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 (Rupees three lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.