Muhammad Tariq, petitioner has sought his post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No, 172 of 31.03.2010 for the offences under Sections 302 & 34 of PPC registered at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari.
2. As per FIR on 31.03.2010 at about 08.00pm, Muhammad Sarwar, complainant along with his son Muhammad Imran were sitting in their Baithak, when co-accused Hafeez came over there and took Muhammad Imran along with him at the shop situated at Chowk Mughalpura. Complainant also followed them. When co-accused Hafeez and Muhammad Imran reached opposite Tariq Autos, Muhammad Tariq, petitioner and one unknown person were standing there, who stopped son of the complainant. Muhammad Tariq, petitioner took out pistol .30-bore from NEFA of his Shalwar and aimed at Muhammad Imran. Hafeez, co-accused took the pistol from Muhammad Tariq and fired two, shots at Muhammad Imran, which landed on his chest, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that motive was not attributed to the petitioner; that had the petitioner intention to commit murder of Muhammad Imran, deceased, he could fire at him as Muhammad Imran, deceased was at his mercy but there is no allegation against the petitioner that he fired at the deceased rather there is allegation against co-accused Hafeez that he fired at the deceased after taking pistol from the petitioner; that there is no overt act attributed to the petitioner in the occurrence and vicarious liability could not be adjudged at bail stage, so, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on Nisar Ahmad & another Vs. The State (2005 P Cr. L J 652).
4. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have contended that the petitioner is named in the promptly lodged FIR; that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he was armed with pistol and co-accused of the petitioner fired with pistol of the petitioner at the deceased, so the petitioner is vicariously liable for the commission of murder of Muhammad Imran; that the trial of the case has already been commenced and the delay in the trial is being caused due to the act of the petitioner, so, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he caused any injury on the person of the deceased rather co-accused Hafeez is alleged to have fired two pistol shots on the deceased which landed on the chest of the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The allegation that co-accused Hafeez fired at the deceased after taking pistol from the petitioner, so the petitioner is also Vicariously liable for the murder of Muhammad Imran, deceased, would be adjudged at the time of trial. Although, the petitioner was allegedly armed with pistol .30-bore but he did not fire at the deceased. No specific motive has been alleged against the petitioner in the FIR. Pistol .30-bore was also not recovered from the possession of the petitioner during investigation. During investigation police also came to the conclusion that the petitioner and the deceased were friends and were jointly running the business of purchase and sale of motorcycles.
7. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner comes within the purview of further inquiry, resultantly, petition in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.