SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, J.---Through instant bail application, applicant seeks post-arrest bail in Crime No,84 of 2015, registered at Police Station Hatri Hyderabad, under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149, P.P.C.
2. Precisely, as per the contents of the FIR it is alleged that on 11.07.2015, accused Sattar Chang due to some dispute fought with complainant's brother Sher Khan and son Rizwan Chang and injured them; that during said fight, both parties received injuries. Thereafter, on 12.07.2015 at evening time, complainant, his father Lal Bux, brothers Shahbaz, Gul Gaz and Allah Bachayo and son Rizwan were sitting in the courtyard of their house when at 05.00 p.m. they saw accused Sattar, Zaid, Ashfaque, Shah Zaman (the applicant) all armed with pistols and accused Ghulam Nabi alias Gulan armed with repeater gun were available on the roof of the house of accused Abdul Sattar; meanwhile accused Abdul Sattar made straight fires upon them as a result of which, Allah Warayo who was disable, could not walk and remained sit over cot, received bullet injury on his mouth; complainant party raised cries whereupon all accused persons down stair and ran away. Thereafter, complainant party saw that Allah Warayo died due to said injury. Then complainant lodged the FIR.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia, contends that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive of the complainant; that there is old feud between the parties and both parties belong to same caste and reside in the same village; that neither any specific role nor any overt act has been attributed to the applicant in the FIR and only general type of allegations are levelled against him; that no recovery has been effected from the possession of applicant; that no independent person is cited as witness of alleged incident; that the applicant is languishing in jail since his arrest; that case of the applicant requires further inquiry, hence he is entitled for bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon 2014 SCM R 27.
4. Learned A.P.G. with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant while opposing the bail application contends that the applicant has been nominated in the FIR with specific role; that there are eyewitnesses available, who can testify the occurrence of the incident and the involvement of the applicant in the commission of the crime; that during investigation complainant and P.Ws. in their 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. statements have fully corroborated the contents of the FIR In support of their contention learned counsel for complainant relied upon 2016 SCM R 2094, 2016 SCM R 1529 and learned APG on 2014 PCr.LJ 1415.
5. Heard and record perused.
6. It is not disputed that parties have been at enmity against each other and even have filed criminal cases against, hence in such like cases the plea of sharing common intention would always be one of further probe, particularly when it comes to such an accused who is alleged to be present at scene only without any active role. Reliance can safely be placed on the case Dilmurad (2010 SCM R 1178) wherein it held as: "6.... In our opinion in so far as the issue of common intention is concerned, it is now well-settled that at the bail stage the same is normally one of further enquiry unless there are other compelling reasons and circumstances to reach a different conclusion i,e, by way of other pieces of evidences, which could definitely connect the applicant/accused with the crime in question..."
7. In the instant matter, the applicant/ accused though allegedly was shown present at place of incident with pistol but has not been attributed any active role whatsoever. Further, the alleged place of incident from where the fire was made is not claimed to be place of the complainant party but roof of the house of accused Abdul Sattar which (house of the accused Abdul Sattar and his brothers) is adjacent to the house of deceased person. The position being so, also strengthens plea of widening of net as mere availability of present applicant / accused at such place would not constitute an offence unless it is established that his presence was not only premeditated but in result of common object. Thus, I have no hesitation to say, vicarious liability can be thrashed out after recording evidence, which could only be done by the learned trial Court. Besides nothing has been recovered from possession of the applicant/accused too. He is also not required by prosecution for any purpose but has been in continuous confinement since date of his arrest i,e, 09.10.2015 (more than one and half years) and yet trial is to be commenced.
8. I would also add that since there is no reparation or compensation can be awarded to one for the long incarceration therefore, it is also well-settled principle of law that benefit of doubt (existence of reasonable grounds towards innocence) even at bail stage should always go in favour of the accused because such accused can well be given his due, if found guilty, at the end of day but if otherwise, the law provides no ways of compensation. Reference can well be made to the case of Zaigham Ashraf 2016 SCM R 18.
9. With regard to case law referred by learned counsel for the complainant as well learned A.P.G, I have examined the same and am of the view that the facts and circumstances are different from present case because in the case of Mohsin Ali (2016 SCM R 1529) and Muhammad Aslam (2016 SCM R 2094) applicant/accused was specifically alleged to have caused injuries to deceased while in the present case the applicant/accused is not alleged to have caused any injury to deceased.
Moreover, in criminal administration of justice each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances.
10. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that applicant's case falls within the scope of further inquiry, hence he is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,300,000/- (Rupees three hundred thousand) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the