' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- The petitioner has sought bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,251 of 2006, dated 27-5-2006, for offences under sections 324/1481149, P.P.C. Police Station Batapur, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner empty handed along with others while armed with fire-arm weapons caused injuries to Rafiq brother of the complainant, Muhammad Aslam, Shahzad, Sajjad and Mst. Shahnaz Bibi. Consequently, the afore-mentioned F.I.R. Was registered against the petitioner and others.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been shown to be empty handed in the F.I.R. And no injury to P.Ws. Had been attributed to him and the only role ascribed to him was that of Lalkara. Further submitted that the co-accused of the petitioner; namely, Ghulam Ali who was also empty handed at the time of occurrence, had been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that nothing had to be recovered from the petitioner, that it was a case of cross-version as. Mst Shahnaz Bibi from the accused side had also been injured in the said occurrence that the petitioner had been involved on account of mala fide of the complainant as he was father of the main accused of the said occurrence that since efforts for a compromise were being made from both sides as such the petitioner could not approach this Court earlier. Lastly contended that the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Were not applicable to the case of the petitioner and whether he was vicariously liable for any acts of his co-accused can only be determined at the trial after recording of evidence, hence the petitioner was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner had been named in the F.I.R. And the role of raising Lalkara had been ascribed to him; that the petitioner was a member of unlawful assembly as a result of which several persons sustained injuries; that the cross-version of the petitioner was not accepted by the police and was dismissed and lastly contended that the offence under section 324, P.P.C. Was hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., hence the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has been shown to be present at the place of occurrence empty-handed in the F.I.R. No injury qua the injured P.Ws. Is attributed to the petitioner. Nothing has to be recovered from the petitioner who is an old man of about 60 years of age. False involvement of the petitioner on account of mala fide of the complainant cannot be ruled out as the petitioner is father of the main accused. Mst. Shahnaz Bibi from the petitioner's side sustained injuries during the said occurrence and cross-version of the petitioner's side was also registered by the police although the same was disbelieved subsequently. As to whether the petitioner is vicariously liable for the acts of his co-accused can only be determined at the trial after recording of evidence. Prima facie, the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Are not attracted to the case of the petitioner who at the time of occurrence, was admittedly empty-handed and did not cause any injury to any of the P.Ws. Since the petitioner is not required for any further investigation by the police, as such his incarceration at this juncture would not serve any useful purpose.
6. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner had made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail. Resultantly, this petition is accepted subject to petitioner's furnishing fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.