The petitioners and two others were arrested by the police for the murder of one Farooq Hassan.
The occurrence took place on 14June, 1980, a day after the small altercation between Babar co- accused and the deceased. The allegation is that the petitioners grappled with the deceased and whereas Babar co-accused inflicted him blows with a dagger, on his chest back and thighs. Bail having been refused to the petitioners by the learned Additional & Sessions Judge, they have now come up to this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that they did not cause any injury to the deceased and in fact they were not even armed. It was submitted that the only role attributed to them was that they grappled with the deceased. In this submission the question of vicarious liability could not be determined at the bail stage. He relied on Basharat Hussain v. Ghulam Hussain etc. (1978 SCMR 357) and Shahid Iqbal v. The State (1976 P Cr. L J 758).
2. The learned State counsel has opposed the bail. His submission is that the petitioners and the co-accused had the common intention to murder the deceased ; they caught hold of the deceased and this facilitated the murder.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The medico legal report indicates that the injury suffered by the deceased over his hand resulting in severing of the blood vessels proved fatal. Only a "Jappha" has been attributed to the petitioners. The question of vicarious liability and the fact as to whether or not they shared the intention of Babar co. Accused, to murder Farooq Hassan, are the matters which can be more appropriately determined at the trial. This is a case for further inquiry.
The precedents cited by the petitioners' learned counsel support his submissions.th
4. For all these reasons, the petitioners are enlarged on bail provided each one of them furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 30.000 with two sureties in the like amount, in each case, to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Lahore.