' ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Mehboob alias Booba petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 173/12, dated 18-6-2012 registered at Police Station Sandal Bar, District Faisalabad for offences under sections 337-F(i)/ 337- L(2)/302/365/148/149/109, P. P. C .
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and he has been roped in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention and ulterior motive after joining hands with the local police. The main accused Jameel who has been attributed fatal shot to the deceased has been declared innocent during the investigation of this case. Other three co- accused of the petitioner namely Boota, Aslam and Tariq with the same roles have also been declared innocent. In these circumstances the .Storey narrated in the F.I.R. Become doubtful. The petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased. He has also not caused firearm injury to any P.W. The injury attributed to the petitioner is simple in nature. Heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail especially when the recovery of weapon of offence is planted upon the petitioner. It is settled law that vicarious liability of the petitioner is to be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 28-7-2012 and he is still behind the bars. The investigation qua the petitioner has already been completed and his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. On the other hand the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General after going through the record opposes this bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is duly named in the F.I.R. And specific role of causing hurt to the injured P.W. Is attributed to him therein. The role attributed to the petitioner is also borne out from the Medico-legal Certificate of the victims. Two persons have lost their lives and the offence with which the petitioner is charged falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. During investigation the petitioner has been found involved in this case by the Investigating Officer. Recovery has been effected from the petitioner. There is ample evidence against the petitioner in shape of statements of witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.
Challan in this case has been submitted and if the petitioner is allowed bail at this stage the case of the prosecution would be prejudice. There is absolutely no malice on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner in this case.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that no injury to any of the deceased is attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner along with his co-accused allegedly inflicted injuries to injured P. Ws. And no specific injury is attributed to him. It is settled law that vicarious liability of the petitioner is a question which would be determined by the learned trial Court at the time of trial. The petitioner is previous non-convict, he was arrested in this case on 28-7-2012, investigation is complete, thus, continuous incarceration of the petitioner in jail would not serve any useful purpose at this stage.
6. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees on hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.