' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.---Through this petition, Akhtar Ali, petitioner seeks his post- arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No,163 of 2009 dated 14-4-2009 for the offences under sections 302, 324, 109, 148 and 149 of P.P.C. At Police Station Tibba Sultanpur, District Vehari.
2. According to F.I.R. On 14-4-2009 at about 11-00 a.m., co-accused persons Fahad, armed with gun, Umar Hayat armed with rifle committed the murder of Muhammad Javed, Shamshad Ali and Nazar Hussain, deceased, whereas allegation against Akhtar Ali (petitioner), Muhammad Nawaz, Mazhar Abbas, Safdar, Sarwar and 15-unknown persons was that they fired on the persons of Shaukat, Muhammad Imran and Riaz and caused them injuries. The specific allegation against the petitioner was that he inflicted injuries on the person of Muhammad Imran, P.W.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner did not cause any injury on the person of any of the deceased; that only allegation against the petitioner was that he inflicted injuries on the person of Muhammad Imran, P.W; that injuries on the person of Muhammad Imran, P.W. Were on the non vital part of the body and were simple in nature; that motive of the occurrence was also not attributed to the petitioner; that police secured empty cartridges of .12-bore from the, place of occurrence which were dispatched to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory and thereafter police allegedly recovered gun on the pointation of the petitioner which was subsequently transmitted to the said office but according to the report the empties secured from the place of occurrence were not fired from the gun recovered on the pointation of the petitioner; that petitioner was arrested on 26-4-2009 and he is behind the bars since then and the trial of the case has not yet started, so, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of, bail. Reliance has been placed on "Liaqat Ali v. The State" (2008 M LD 102) and "Shafi Muhammad v. The State" (2004 PCr. LJ 2002).
4. Learned D.P.G. And learned counsel for the complainant have contended that petitioner was specifically nominated in the F.I.R. And there was specific allegation against him that he caused injuries on the person of Muhammad Imran, P.W.; that gun was also recovered on the pointation of the petitioner during investigation; that petitioner armed .With gun came along with his co- accused persons, who committed the murder of Muhammad Javed, Sharnshad Ali and Nazar Hussain, so the petitioner was also vicariously liable for the murder of aforementioned deceased persons,therefore, he was not entitled to the grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner did not cause any injury on the person of Muhammad Javed, Shamshad Ali and Nazar Hussain, deceased persons. The allegation against the petitioner was that while armed with gun, he fired at Muhammad Imran, P.W. Perusal of medico legal certificate of Muhammad Imran, P.W. Reveals that he sustained two injuries on lower part of right and left leg.
The allegation against the petitioner was that he caused simple injuries on the non-vital parts of body of Muhammad Imran, P.W. Petitioner was not connected with motive part of prosecution story rather motive was attributed to main accused Fahad. Although the gun was recovered on the pointation of the petitioner during investigation but report of Forensic Science Laboratory dated 2- 9-2009 reveals that empties of .12-bore gun secured from the place of occurrence were not found to be fired from the gun recovered on the' pointation of the petitioner. Petitioner is behind the bars since 26-4-2009 and not a single witness has recorded by the learned trial Court, so the petitioner cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period as there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in near future and bail cannot be withheld as punishment, if otherwise, the case is found to be of further inquiry as held in PLD 1992 SC 81. So far as question of common intention is concerned, the same can only be determined at the trial and not at bail stage.
7. Accordingly this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.