Muhammad Yaseen son of Muhammad Hanif, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 23/2008 dated 04.02.2008 registered at Police Station Galaywal District Lodhran, for offences under Sections 302, 452, 109, 148, 149 PPC. In the first information report the role attributed to the petitioner was that he was armed with 12-bore gun but did not cause any injury to the deceased.
2. It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the investigation weapon of offence was not recovered; that Muhammad Manzoor co-accused who was attributed injury on non-vital part of the body was released by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2009, passed in Crl. Misc. No, 3656-B-2008; that the case of the present compared to the co-accused named above, who was released on bail.
3. Conversely the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by Chaudhary Ghulam Miran, Advocate vehemently opposes this petition and contends that the trial in the case has commenced and the statements of two prosecution witnesses have already been recorded. Case of Muhammad Manzoor was not at par with the present petitioner because he was declared innocent during the course of investigation, whereas the petitioner has been found guilty; the petitioner was armed with 12-bore gun and he facilitated in the commission of offence of heinous nature. In his supplementary statement dated 04.02.2008, the complainant has implicated the present petitioner, wherein he has been assigned specific role of causing fire-arm injury on the right wrist of the deceased. Two PWs Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Saeed in their statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., corroborated the version put forth by the complainant in his statement. The Investigating Officer has found the petitioner guilty which findings have been endorsed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police investigation. The learned counsel for the complainant adds that statements of five PWs have till date been recorded.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly the only role attributed to the petitioner is facilitating the principal accused in commission of the offence alleged against. No fire-arm weapon was recovered from him. Co- accused namely Muhammad Manzoor has already been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2009. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last more than one year. Question of vicarious liability shall be determined at the trial. No useful purpose would be served if he is kept behind the bar particularly when investigation is complete. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record and from the attending circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case of further inquiry within the parameters of proviso of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
6. This petition is therefore, allowed. The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 5,00,000/- (five lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. He shall continue to appear before the learned trial Court, if during the course of trial the learned trial Court feels that this bail is being misused by the petitioner, in that eventuality he shall be at liberty to cancel the same.