' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Tariq alias Bogi through the instant petition has prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,167 registered under sections 324/427/148/149, P.P.C. With Police Station, Manga Mandi, Lahore on 15-3-2010.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 15-3-2010 at about 6/7-00 a.m. Tariq (petitioner) having firearm along with others armed with different weapons, in prosecution of the common objectives of the unlawful assembly formed by them, has resorted to firing at the spot and as a consequence of the same, complainant, Muhammad Nazir, his maternal nephews, Muhammad Nawaz and. Muhammad Iqbal were injured. They also have torn the tyres of their tractor. The incident has taken place on the dispute between the parties over land.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that according to the narration of the F.I.R, the role assigned to all the accused is of general in nature. There is no specific role to any of the accused nominated therein.
4. It is admitted position on the record that all the accused except the petitioner have been allowed bail. The learned D.P.-G., when questioned that if his case according to the prosecution story in the F.I.R. Is at par with that of those co-accused, his answer is in the affirmative. Thus, the rule of consistency is attracted to his case.
5. However, according to him, Muhammad Nawaz injured on 22-3-2010, has made statement assigning him specific role of having fired at him.
6. This statement of the said witness was stately recorded after seven days of the alleged incident.
The learned D.P.-G. Was questioned that if he (injured Muhammad Nawaz), according to the record was unable to make statement during the intervening period, his answer to that is in the negative.
7. Hence, the question of evidentiary value of such delayed statement of that injured, P.W. Is to be gone into at trial.
8. In view of the general role assigned to the petitioner in the F.I.R., the question of his vicarious liability in the matter is also to be determined at trial.
9. Admittedly, there is cross-version from the side of the petitioner. From their side two persons namely Rehmat Ali and Mst. Sumaira have statedly have been injured. The learned D.P.-G. Has informed that at one stage, their cross-version was cancelled but now D.S.P. Nao Lakha, Lahore on 23-9-2010, has revived/restored their such version. It is, therefore, yet to be seen that which of the parties was aggressor and who aggressed upon. His case, therefore, fails within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
10. He is stated to be behind the bars since 24-9-2010 and his trial has not yet commenced.
11. In these circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
12. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
13.I may mention 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.
D