' TARIQ SHAMIM, J---Through this petition the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.113/05, dated 10-7-2005 for offences under sections 302/324/380/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City Rajanpur.
2. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that on 10-7-2005 at about 2-15 a m. When the complainant along with other family members was sleeping in the house, he was awakened by the barking of dogs, he saw that the door of his residential room was open whereupon he looked into the room and found that two iron boxes containing jewelry, ornaments, one tape recorder and cash in the sum of Rs. 30,000 had been stolen.'The complainant along with his relatives and other witnessed chased the accused who were found on Jinda More and the complainant party tried to stop them. One of the accused who was party but the same did not hit anyone. The deceased Haji tried to apprehend the said accused, who gave several blows with the butt of his gun on the head of the said Haji who fell down. Whereafter the accused succeeded to run away leaving behind a .12 bore gun and the tape recorder. Initially the F.I.R. Was lodged under sections 324/380/148/ 149, P.P.0 but on the demise of the said Haji in the hospital section 302, P.P.0 was added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was neither named in the F.I.R.
Nor any specific role of causing injuries on the person of the deceased had been assigned to him; that the injuries to the deceased were ascribed to Abdullah accused in the supplementary statement made by the complainant; that the supplementary statement was recorded on 31-7- 2005 after a lapse of 21 days from the date of occurrence as such the same was of no consequence; that the main accused Abdullah had been arrested and gun had been recovered from him; that the petitioner was behind the bars for the last several months and the investigation being complete the petitioner was not required for any further investigation by the police. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner Hussain with similar role had been granted bail by this Court on 20-4-2006 and under the law of consistency the petitioner was also entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently resisted the bail petition on the ground that the F.I.R. Had been promptly lodged and recovery of sota and some jewelry had been effected from the petitioner, that the petitioner was named in the supplementary statement and that the offences fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. That the challan had been submitted and the trial was likely to commence in the near future.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. There is no allegation against the petitioner of having caused any injury on the person of the deceased, which resulted in his death. The injury to the deceased has been ascribed to the co- accused namely Abdullah who is behind the bars and from whose possession gun was also recovered. Whether the petitioner is vicariously liable or not for the act of his co-accused can be determined at the trial and not at the bail stage. The petitioner has been nominated in the supplementary statement made by the complainant on 31-7-2005 i.e. After a lapse of twenty-one days from the date of occurrence. No specific allegation of any overt act heaving been committed by the petitioner has been made in the F.I.R. And the evidence available on record is not sufficient to "onnect the accused/petitioner with the commission of offences alleged against him. The recovery (sic) keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. The co-accused of the petitioner namely, Mureed Hussain has already been granted bail by this Court and the role assigned to both the accused being similar therefore under the law of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the concession of bail.
7. In view of what has been stated above this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.