Rashid Aziz Khan, J.- Arshad petitioner is involved in a case registered against him and four others with Police Station Khankah Dogran, District Sheikhupura, for offence under sections 302/307/148/149 PPC, vide FIR dated 21.12.1988. The allegation against the petitioner and his co- accused is that on 21.12.1988 at about 10:30 a.m., Muhammad Arif (deceased) was going in the street along with his sheep, and Abdul Khaliq, the first informant, was standing outside in the lane.
When Muhammad Arif reached near the shop of Arshad petitioner, the co-accused of the petitioner armed with different fire-arms, along with the petitioner armed with a carbine, surprised said Arif and made a murderous assauIt. The role ascribed to the petitioner is that he along with Ijaz and Liaqat fired ineffectively.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no motive to participate in the commission of the offence. Submits that even if the allegation against him is accepted, it is only of ineffective firing and that also at the time when the deceased had already been hit with the fire-shots of Boota and Azam, co-accused. Submits that in these circumstances, the question whether the petitioner intended to cause any injury to the deceased is yet to be determined, therefore, it becomes a case of further inquiry. Submits that no empty was recovered from the spot which could connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The contentions have been opposed by learned counsel for the State.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and persued the record. There is nothing on the record to indicate the relationship of the petitioner with Boota and Azam, co-accused, who have been attributed direct motive. The petitioner is alleged to have fired ineffectively one shot, that also when the deceased Arif was hit by the fire-shots of Boota and Azam and had fallen down. In these circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel has some force that it is yet to be seen whether the petitioner shared the common intention with his co-accused. This aspect can only be determined after some evidence has been recorded. Primafacie, it appears to be a case of further inquiry which entitles the petitioner to the concession of bail.
4. Therefore, the petitioner is allowed bail provided he furnishes security in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate concerned.