' M. BILAL KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Ashfaq son of Muhammad Sharif, the petitioner, by filing this petition, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,139 of 1999, dated 17-4-1999, registered with Police Station Saddar Daska, District Sialkot for offences under sections 148, 302, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 337- L(2), 324/149, P.P.C.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. Registered at the instance of Muhammad Asghar son of Ghulam Muhammad, the complainant, was that on the day of occurrence at 9-30 a.m. He along with his three other co-accused variously armed with firearms had fired at Mst. Naziran Bibi, Muhammad Asghar and Abdul Jabbar as a result whereof Mst.
Naziran Bibi, Muhammad Asghar and Abdul Jabbar sustained injuries whereas Mst. Fatima Bibi, the mother of the complainant, succumbed to her fire-arm injuries.
3. During trial Muhammad Ishfaq petitioner had been allowed post arrest bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction but on 7-11-2001 on commencement of the trial, he absented himself, as a result of which he was proceeded against and ultimately proceedings under section 512, Cr.P.C.
Had been initiated. After 5-1/2 years he surrendered himself before the Court on 21-4-2007 with the plea that the co-accused of the petitioner with similar role who too remained P.O. Had been granted post-arrest bail by Mr. Muhammad Tanveer Akbar, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska; vide order, dated 5-7-2005, therefore, he is also entitled to the same relief. However, his plea for post-arrest bail did not find favour with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who cancelled his post-arrest bail application already allowed to him by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order, dated 23-5-2007. Hence this petition.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Deputy Prosecutor- General and going through the record, it has been observed that the petitioner along with his co- accused had been granted post-arrest bail by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska, but both of them remained absent and had been validly declared proclaimed offenders. It is true that the precedent of a predecessor Court is not binding on his successor but at the same time the Court is also duty-bound to ensure that no discrimination should be resorted to merely by invoking technicalities. If the facts and circumstances of the case of Shamshad who had been bailed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are juxtaposed with that of the present petitioner, coupled with the fact that Muhammad Asghar accused who had been assigned the main role of firing at the deceased had been acquitted of the charge on the basis of a compromise, concession of bail cannot be withheld from the petitioner as a measure of punishment. The true import of his vicarious liability and the role played by him shall be determined at the time of trial after collecting some material evidence. At present the petitioner cannot be retained in custody indefinitely, merely on the ground that he remained fugitive from law. The case of the present petitioner being on a better footing than his co-accused, he is also entitled to the same relief.
5. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 (Rupees five lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. However, he shall appear in the trial Court on each and every date of hearing till the final disposal of the case, failing which the law will take its own course.