' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Inayat Ullah son of Muhammad Ayub, Hidayat Ullah son of Habib Ullah, Rab Nawaz son of Sultan and Najeeb Ullah son of Abdul Majeed, the petitioners, seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,100 of 2006 dated 30-4-2006, registered with Police Station Saddar District Mianwali, for offences under sections 148, 302, 149, P.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution as it unfolded in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Ahmad Khan son of Muhammad Nawaz, the complainant, was that on 30-4-2006 after attending a party at his cousin's house he and his brother Zaman and his nephew Mati-ur-Rehman were returning home; when they had reached near the outlet of watercourse at 8-30 p.m., they found Najeeb Ullah son of Abdul Hameed, Shafa Ullah, Inayat Ullah sons of Muhammad Ayyub and Habib Ullah son of Abdullah armed with .12 bore guns; Hidayat Ullah son of Habib Ullah armed with rifle and Rab Nawaz son of Sultan armed with a Danda, sitting in ambush; they appeared in front of them and were identified in the light of bulb; Rab Nawaz while raising Lalkara caused a Danda blow to his brother Noor Zaman, which hit him on the back; he and his companions tried to extricate him (Noor Zaman) from the assailants whereupon Rab Nawaz exhorted his co-accused to fire straight at them; Najeeb Ullah fired straight at Noor Zaman, however, the same missed; during this while Shafa Ullah fired with his weapon hitting Noor Zaman on right side of his chest causing the latter to fall down; the noise raised and the report of firing drew his brother Muhammad Khan at the scene of occurrence whereafter the accused while indulging in firing fled away from the spot; Noor Zaman injured was removed to Civil Hospital. Mianwali in injured condition, however, he succumbed to his injuries at the main gate of the hospital.
' The motive according to the complainant was that Noor Zaman wanted to marry Nasreen a sister of Najeeb Ullah, which had furnished grudge to the accused who with due deliberation and consultation had killed Noor Zaman.
3. The petitioners were arrested on 22-5-2006 and are in custody ever since. Their application for post-arrest bail had been turned downby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali vide order dated 13-12-2006, Hence this petition.
4. I have heard Mr. Talaat Farooq Shaikh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Muhammad Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional Prosecutor-General Punjab for the State and have perused the record brought' by Abdul Majeed, S.-I., Police Station, Saddar Mianwali.
5. It has been observed that the only injury suffered by the deceased had been caused with a fire- arm and that apart from that he did not suffer any injury even with a blunt weapon. The only injury which proved fatal was attributed to Shafa Ullah co-accused. The present petitioners according to the prosecution's own showing had been arrested after twenty-one days of the occurrence.
However, the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded in paragraph No,6 of his order whereby bail had been disallowed to the petitioners that, "the petitioners were arrested by the police after a long chase having been declared proclaimed offenders and no justification has been given by the petitioners for their absence from the locality during the period of .Their abscondence" does not make any logic. Non-appearance or disappearance of an accused in a murder case, who has not been attributed any vital role from the scene for twenty days, can by no stretch of the argument be termed as a "long chase". The recoveries of Danda and fire-arms have been effected from the petitioners therefore, they are no more required by the police. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when no vital role has been attributed to anyone of the petitioners apart from the fact that they had accompanied the co-accused at the time of occurrence, their vicarious liability calls for further probe within the meanings of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to post-arrest bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
7. I would like to add that the observations made hereinabove are for the limited purpose of bail and are not designed to influence the course of trial in any manner whatsoever.