Petitioner Atteq-Ur-Rehman seeks post arrest bail in a case FIR No, 246 dated 19.09.2012 under Sections 302/34, PPC registered at Police Station Kundian District Mianwali.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner on the person of the deceased and there is only collective allegation against him that he along with his co-accused Gull Rehman and Hafeez-Ur-Rehman made indiscriminating firing upon the deceased due to which he sustained injuries on different parts of his body; that recovery of .30- bore pistol shown against the petitioner is insignificant because no empty of .30-bore pistol was taken into possession from the spot. Further contends that the principal accused namely Matti-ur- Rehman, to whom the fatal injury on the chest of the deceased has been attributed, has alreadjr been declared innocent during the investigation and has been allowed bail by the learned trial Court; that co-accused Hafeez-ur-Rehman, having been assigned the similar role, has also been granted bail by the learned trial Court; that the complainant has also filed a private complaint after declaration of innocence of two co-accused of the petitioner wherein he has attributed same joint role to the petitioner and his co-accused; that in the circumstances mentioned above case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry into his guilt and that the petitioner is behind the bars since 05.11.2012 without any substantive progress in his trial, therefore, he is entitled for bail.
3. On the other hand learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while opposing this bail application contends that the petitioner is nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with the role of firing at the deceased along with his co-accused; that the weapon of offence has been recovered from the petitioner; that the occurrence took place in the open Bazar, therefore empties could not be found there and even otherwise non-recovery of empties does not adversely affect the recovery of weapon of offence, Further contends that there are eight entry wounds on the person of the deceased that supports the version of the complainant that the petitioner along with his two co-accused made indiscriminating firing at the deceased; that deeper appreciation of evidence is not desirable at this stage; that the petitioner is also vicariously liable for the every act of his co- accused; that there is no reason for false implication of the petitioner in this case and that case of the petitioner is quite distinguishable than the case of his co-accused Mati-ur-Rehman and Hafeez-ur-Rehman, as Mati-ur-Rehman has been declared innocent during the investigation and there is an opinion of the investigating officer in favour of co-accused Hafeez-ur-Rehman.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly, no specific injury on the person of the deceased has been attributed to the petitioner and there is only collective allegation of indiscriminating firing by him and his two co-accused on the person of deceased, in the FIR. Although recovery of the alleged weapon of offence has been shown against the petitioner yet no crime empty of such weapon has been recovered from the spot. Co-accused Mati-ur-Rehman, to whom the fatal injury with a .12 bore repeater gun on the chest of the deceased has been attributed, has been declared innocent during the investigation.
The complainant has also filed a private complaint against the accused with the similar version as mentioned in the FIR. The vicarious liability of the petitioner, in the backdrop of non-attribution of any specific injury, medical evidence and non-recovery of any empty of .30 bore pistol from the spot, can validly be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of some evidence. In view of the above, case against the petitioner, prima facie, falls within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.0 and is one of further inquiry into his guilt. The petitioner is behind the bars since 05.11.2012 without any substantive progress in his trial. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.