' ABDUL. SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.398/12 dated 12-11-2012 under sections 302, 34, 109, P.P.C., Police Station Langrana, District Chiniot.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent; he has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant by widening the net; the petitioner is a young boy; no injury is attributed to the present petitioner; the only allegation against the present petitioner is that he caught hold of the deceased whereas his co-accused fired shots on the deceased and caused fatal injury to him; such type of allegations are very easy to level but very difficult to prove; the petitioner remained on physical remand but nothing was recovered from him; during investigation it has come on record that the petitioner was merely present at the place of occurrence and has not taken any part in the occurrence; he is minor; he is behind the bars since 16-12-2012; it is settled law that vicarious liability of the accused is to be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence; investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation; his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, after going through the record, has vehemently opposed this bail petition on the grounds that there is absolutely no malice of the complainant to falsely implicate the present petitioner in this case; the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role of catching hold of the deceased; he is directly connected with the motive part; charge has been framed by the learned trial Court and the petitioner is delaying the trial on one pretext or the other; during investigation he has been found involved in this case by the Investigating Officer and the case of the petitioner falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. It has been noticed by this Court that although the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. But the facts remains that no injury to the deceased is attributed to him; the only allegation of catching hold of the deceased is attributed to the petitioner whereas his co-accused fired shots on the deceased with his pistol and caused fatal injury; it does not appeal to a prudent mind that a person would catch hold of deceased when his co-accused was inflicting fire shot injuries to deceased and is also putting his own life at stake; such type of allegations are very easy to level but very difficult to prove; admittedly the petitioner remained on physical remand but nothing was recovered from him; during investigation it has come on record that he was merely present at the place of occurrence; it is settled law that vicarious liability of the accused is to be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence; investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation; no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars; mere commencement of trial is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise the accused becomes entitled bail; reliance can be placed upon 2013 SCM R 49 he is behind the bars since 16- 12-2012.
5. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the, learned trial Court.
6. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.