The petitioner seeks posts arrest bail in case FIR No, 337 dated 5.10.2008 registered under Sections 302/324/148/149/337-A(ii)/337- A(iii)/337-F(iii)337-F(v) PPC at Police Station Karor District Layyah.
2. The prosecution case is that on 5.10.2008 at about 1.00 p.m. when the complainant alongwith others was present in Chak No, 98/TDA the petitioner armed with iron rod alongwith 12 others came there and assaulted on the complainant party. Qisar fired with his rifle which hit Khalil Ahmad son of the complainant. The fire of Abdul Wahid hit the other son of the complainant namely Jamil Ahmad. Fire of Haji Munir Ahmad hit on the right hand of Abdul Rauf. Muhammad Ashraf fired which hit to Inayat Ali and thereafter all the accused persons attacked with sotas, hatchets and iron roads and injured the complainant party.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a general role of beating is attributed to the petitioner and no specific role was assigned to him by the complainant in the FIR.
It is further contended that eight persons of the accused party received injuries during that occurrence which were concealed by the prosecution. The medico legal reports of those injured persons were presented before the I0 and the same were never challenged by the complainant party. A cross-version on the statement of Muhammad Boota accused was recorded which was disbelieved by the IO and was cancelled, however a private complaint was filed which is pending in which complainant party has been summoned.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant assisted by learned DDPP has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and contended that it was promptly lodged FIR. During attack by more than thirteen accused it was very difficult to assign specific role to each and every accused so a general role was assigned to most of the accused persons. Even otherwise petitioner is vicariously liable for murder of Khalil Ahmad, deceased as he was member of unlawful assembly with common object and case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of Kashif who was granted bail by this Court as he was declared innocent by the police.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is nominated in the FIR but no specific role has been assigned to him. Eight persons sustained injuries during the occurrence who were medically examined immediately but those injuries were suppressed by the prosecution in the FIR. The cross-version put by Muhammad Boota, accused was discharged by the police. It is general phenomena of the police that in the murder cases cross-version of the accused party is normally not entertained. The question of vicarious or constructive liability will be determined during the course of trial because this is a case of two stories as private complainant filed by the accused party is also pending in the trial Court.
7. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner has become a that of further inquiry falling under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. As such this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one suety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.