The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 289/11 dated 07.07.2011 under Sections 302, 109, 148, 149 PPC registered at P.S. Saddar Mian Channu, District Khanewal.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per FIR the occurrence took place on 07.07.2011 at 5:30 p.m. when 11 accused persons including the petitioner armed with deadly weapons attacked the complainant and his brother Umar Draz. The learned counsel contends that motive is not attributed to the petitioner. It was rather attributed to Faazil who wanted to contract marriage with fiance of the brctther of the complainant and the said Faazil had also insulted him.
The learned counsel goes on to submit that a wider net has been thrown by the complainant to involve maximum number of persons of the family of the petitioner. No specific role was attributed to the petitioner and mere his presence was shown at the place of occurrence. He contends that 9 accused out of 11 were found to be innocent during the investigation and only two persons i,e, petitioner and his brother Faazil were challaned. The petitioner was found to be empty handed during the investigation. The fatal fire is attributed to the co-accused Faazil and not even a single bruise was attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner is in the judicial lock up for the last more than two months. It is a case of further inquiry so the learned counsel prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. in support of his arguments the learned counsel has referred to PLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Lahore)
402, 2005 P.Cr.R. 730 (Lahore) and 1996 SCMR 1654.
3. The learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the petition and argued that although the petitioner was found empty handed but his presence is enough to connect him with commission of the offence. The case of the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. so he is not entitled to concession of bail.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced from both the sides.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner is a boy of tender age having no previous record. He is not a previous convict. Although he was shown to be armed with rifle in the FIR but during the investigation it was found that he was empty handed. No specific role is attributed to the petitioner. The complainant had involved 11 persons in the FIR but during the investigation only two persons were challaned and remaining accused have not found to have committed the offence. The entire family has been involved by the complainant by throwing a wider net. Four real brothers were implicated in this case, whereas fatal shot is attributed to Faazil brother of the petitioner. The motive is also attributed to him. No recovery was effected from the petitioner. The question of vicarious liability has to be determined during the trial. Although the challan has been submitted in the Court but it is not likely to be concluded in the near future. To the extent of the petitioner, it is a case of further inquiry. The petitioner is no more required for any further investigation. So, keeping in view role of the petitioner, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.