Through this petition, the petitioner namely Mujahid Ali seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 564/2017, dated 07.8.2017, offence under Section 324, PPC, registered with the Police Station Muzaffarabad, District Multan.
2. As per FIR, allegation against the petitioner is that he fired a straight shot with his gun .12 bore upon the complainant's party and pellets of the same injured the complainant's brother Waseem.
3. Arguments heard, record perused.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was nominated in the FIR but the facts remains that the petitioner has not repeated the fire shot. The said fact leads to this Court to draw an inference that the petitioner has no intention to kill him, therefore, attraction of Section 324, PPC is necessarily a matter of further inquiry. It is settled principle of law that question of vicarious liability can be determined at the time of trial and not at the time of bail. Guidance is sought from "Khan Sardar and another v. The State and another" (2009 YLR 1076).
5. As regards contention of learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner has been declared guilty during investigation, suffice to say that it is well settled that ipsi dixit of police is no binding upon the Court and even for the purpose of bail, law is not to be stretched in favour of the prosecution. Guidance is sought from "Abid Ali alias. Ali v. The State" (2011 SCMR 161).
6. As far as recovery of .12-bore gun effected from the -petitioner is concerned, it is noticed that according to the Investigating Officer, present in the Court, no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence, therefore, the said recovery is not helpful to the case of prosecution at this stage.
7. Furthermore, the applicability of offence under Section 324, PPC and vicarious liability of the petitioner will be determined by the learned trial Court after recording .of the evidence. Reliance is placed upon. "Per Bus v. The State " (2012 SCMR 1955).
8. It has also brought on the surface from the police record that there was a stifle between the parties and other party also caused injury on the person of Shahid, who is real brother of the petitioner and his MLR is also on the file, but the injures on the body of said Shahid has been suppressed by the prosecution side in the narration of FIR which is sufficient to cause doubt on the veracity of the prosecution story. It is yet to be determined by the learned trial Court as to who is aggressor and who was aggressed upon. Guidance is sought from "Muhammad Younas v. The State and another" (2010 PCr.LJ 807), "Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Iftikhar-ul-Haq and 3 others" (1996 SCMR 1845) and "Muhammad Hussain alias Malang etc. v. State" (PLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1052).
9. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, question of culpability of the petitioner can validly be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of some evidence. Even otherwise, the investigation is completed. The person of the petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation. He is behind the bars since 09.10.2017 without any progress in the trial. Fair and speedy trial is one of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. No moral or legal compulsion existed to keep the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period; which would amount to punish the petitioner without trial. Guidance is sought from Liaquat Hussain v. The State through Advocate- General of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and another (2015 P.Cr.L.J. 1812).
10.Therefore, without further commenting upon the merits of the case, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
11.Before parting with this order, I deem necessary to observe that the observation made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall have no bearing on any of the other proceeding connected to this case.