' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Munawar Khan by way of the instant petition has sought for after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,198 registered under sections 302/109/148/149, P.P.C. With Police Station Massan, District Jhang on 19-6-2009.
2. The facts of the case were recorded on 4-3-2010, on the similar petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,1392/B of 2010 of his co-accused Muhammad Zafar Khan, I, therefore, avoid to repeat the same here.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the role ascribed to him in the commission of the crime alleged is that he and his co-accused Muhammad Hussain had inflicted sota blow to the deceased father of the complainant hitting on his left hand and left eye and thereafter, when complainant's uncle Khan Muhammad stepped forward to rescue his deceased father, he and co-accused Nasir gave the beatings to him with sotas.
4. The above position shows that no specific injury either of the deceased or said injured Khan Muhammad is ascribed to him. It is also note worthy that there is no mention in the F.I.R. Of the locale of the injuries of injured Khan Muhammad. In such circumstances, the question of his vicarious liability in the matter is to be gone into at trial. His case, therefore, is open to further inquiry into his guilt and so, covered under subsection (2) of section 497 Cr . P. C .
5. It may be mentioned here that the learned counsel for the complainant has contended that at such a stage only tentative assessm ent of the material available on the record is to be made and deeper questions are to be avoided. In support of his such submission, he has placed reliance upon the case of Khalid Javed Gillan v. The State (PLD 1978 SC 256).
6. I am afraid that the above observations of this Court are the result of the only tentative assessm ent of the material on the record and are not of any deeper appreciation of the evidence.
Hence, such contention is without force. The above esteemed authority, so, is of no avail to the case of the complainant.
7. I may mention here that it is well settled proposition in criminal administration of justice that each criminal case is to B be adjudged in the background of it's own facts and circumstances and the facts of two criminal cases seldom coincide.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about one year. His trial statedly has commenced with the framing of formal charge against him but no P.W. Has C been recorded therein as yet.
However, it cannot come as a clog in his way to grant of the relief of bail in view of case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 SC 585). Their Lordships in that case have held that when case of an accused may, otherwise, be found fit for bail and covered subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., then he becomes entitled to bail as of right irrespective of the fact that the trial has commenced as it is a matter of practice, whereas the former of right and right to take precedence over practice.
9. I, thus, find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail D bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
10. However, it is clarified here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on anybody's case at trial.