1. ' MRS. YASMIN ABBASEY, J.--- Case of prosecution is that applicant in company of other culprits named in F.I.R. No,82 of 2007 pressed Sadam Hussain for friendship, who declined to join their company. In revenge thereof as per contents of F.I.R., on 24-3-2007 when deceased Sadam Hussain reached near New Taj. Hotel where the complainant along with his family members was also present, accused persons named in the F.I.R. Duly armed with weapons caught hold Sadam Hussain and accused Sikandar Brihmani inflicted dagger blow on the chest of Sadam Hussain.
2. Applicant Muhammad son of Abdullah also present at the place of incident duly armed with pistol, but except alleging that he aimed pistol on deceased, no specific role has been assigned against him in causing the death of deceased Sadam Hussain. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant has referred to Attaullah v. State 1999 SCM R 1320 wherein it was that accused were not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased, therefore, he is entitled.To the grant, of bail.
3. In Faraz Akram v. State 1999 SCM R 1360, though the applicant of that case had fired shot, but still it was observed that "in support of this petition, it was contended that no overt act had been ascribed to the petitioner save for ineffective firing, which also stands disproved because no empty was recovered". It was further argued that only Hasnain was attributed fatal blow and the petitioner had nothing to do. The circumstances thus revealed that it was only Hasnain, who had fired the fatal shot. The question of vicarious liability of the petitioner will be determined at the trial. In this view of the matter, it is a case of further inquiry covered by section 497(2), Cr.P.C." In the same direction in Ali Shah v. State 2002 PCr.LJ 707, it was held that "Enmity between the parties was admitted in. The. F.I.R. Accused had allegedly caught hold of deceased by the arms at the time of occurrence along with other co-accused when the principal accused had given a dagger blow on the chest of the deceased. Presence of, accused at the spot and his participation in the commission, of offence were matters of further inquiry. Accused was admitted to bail accordingly".
4. ' Conversely, learned State counsel has opposed to the grant of bail on the ground that the very presence of the applicant at the spot duly armed with pistol and making aim, towards the deceased is sufficient to connect his involvement and intention to commit the offence.
5. The arguments of learned State counsel in view of observations of Honourable Supreme Court referred above has no substance. The F.I.R. Specifically named Sikandar Brihmani as the person who caused dagger blow to Sadam Hussain and mere presence of applicant with T.T. Pistol is not sufficient to prove that he, was also one of the culprits. As per medical certificate, one injury is shown on the person of deceased having no nexus of any injury by fire-arm.
6. ' In view 'of foregoing reasons, the applicant is allowed to be released on bail subject to the furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.