The petitioner along with Shahu, Ghulam A.I, Allah Yar, Amir, and Munir were involved in a case under sections 307/148/149 P.P.C., registered. With Police Station, Kot Moman, District Sargodha, at the instance of Muhammad Akbar. It was alleged by the complainant that on 27th April, 1989, while he was going from his house to that of his brother Bati Khan, he was way laid by accused, Shahu accused prompted the others to kill the complainant for the insult he has brought to them. It is alleged that Amir accused who was armed with a 12 bore gun fired hitting at the neck. The complainant who fell after receiving this injury. The P.Ws reached spot and intervened thereafter complainant was removed to hospital. This is not shell case of the prosecution as contained in the F.I.R.
2. The petitioner along with Amir moved for grant of bail after arrest. The same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide order dated 15th, June, 1989. Hence this petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no role has been assigned to the petitioner in the F.I.R. It is added that the police has declared the petitioner innocent and put him in column 2 of the challan submitted in the trial Curt. It is added that Shahu, who was shown to be present armed with a rifle alike petitioner has been granted bail.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the state has argued that petitioner cannot escape vicarious liability. He was very much part of the unlawful assembly therefore, not entitled to bail. It is added that he was armed with a rifle.
I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. It is admitted position that petitioner has not been assigned any active role in the occurrence. Coupled with the facts that the petitioner has been declared innocent by the investigation agency. It is true that the petitioner is shown to be armed with rifle but the same has not been recovered. All these facts make the case against petitioner a case of further inquiry.
The result is that I allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
S.A./M-1627/L