' It is an application for bail in a case in which besides the petitioner four others were also involved.
One was shot dead and two were injured. The allegation against the present petitioner was that he like two others carried a gun, which all of them used in the firing not only at the deceased but also the informant. In fact, the injury sustained by the informant was attributed to the present petitioner.
It landed on his sternum, tray lied right up to his scapula where it is still embedded.
2. The remaining four accused were allowed bail after strenuous investigation made by no less than four agencies, which in their own way found that Gulzar and Yousaf co-accused were not involved at all, though they were shown in the F I R to have shot the deceased as also the other injured.
3. Learned counsel stressed that since the whole story was doubted by as many agencies, and further that since the main accused had already been allowed bail, there was no point in refusing it to the present petitioner, against whom the sole allegation was of having caused a simple injury, not to the deceased, but only to the informant. He placed reliance upon 1978 SCMR 7; 1978 SCMR 146; 1980 PCr.LJ 993 and 1981 P Cr. L J 1232, which no doubt created a sort of distinction in favour of an accused who caused only a simple injury by firearm.
4. On the other hand, Mr. A .K . Dogar, counsel for the complainant, assisted by Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi, for the State, contended that the rule laid down in 1978 SCMR 7, was not that invariable, and that lately it was modified in 1981 SCMR 1092 by holding that even a simple injury by firearm was enough to refuse bail on the principle of vicarious liability. Similar rule was laid down in PLD 1978 SC 236, which in fact was claimed to be clear in terms to apply to the present case.
5.Even if the petitioner is conceded some distinction, performance- wise firing by him on the complainant at his chest by itslef was no small contribution. The projectile travelled luckily for the injured, upwards to the scapula, but if it were to travel down on the left side of his sternum, most probably his heart would have been affected. It was just a chance having nothing to make the petitioner's intention holier. Even the investigations conducted by as many agencies did not find anything extenuating for him, and this circumstance further suggests his complicity. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.