Mr. A. R. Shabab Mufti, the learned counsel for the State, has frankly conceded that the case of the present petitioners is not distinguishable from that of Ghulam Muhammad 60-accused who has already been granted bail vide order dated 1-4-1971. However, he vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the present petitioners who are involved in serious offences like murder etc. The prosecution has so far examined 17 witnesses. Except complainant Manak and his brother Lal, none of the alleged eye-witnesses has supported the prosecution case. Muhammad son of Dulla, Nukra son of Walia Khokhar, Kamira son of Nadira, Shamira son of Nadira, Salim son of Muhammada, Ghulam Hussain son of Ahmad Khokhar, Shah Muhammad alias Shahmand son of Nukra, Rehmat A.I son of Ghulam Muhammad and Falak Sher son of Noor Muhammad P.Ws. Were declared hostile by the prosecution and were allowed to be cross-examined by the P. S. I. In spite of the cross--- examination by the P. S. I. Nothing useful has been brought out on the record to support the prosecution case. As regards Lal P. W. He has attributed specific part to Rab Nawaz and Shahna co-accused who fired and killed Shahmand and Yaqoob deceased persons. The other accused persons including the present petitioners are assigned no specific part as regards the injuries to the deceased and the injured persons are concerned. However, Manka P. W. Has stated that (MUJHE SHERA KA FIRE LAGA) " After this he has said: "PHIR JUMLA MULZIMAAN NE FIRE SHUROO KAR DIYA".
2. I have carefully gone through the record of the case with the assistance of the State Counsel and find out that out of the present petitioners except Shera no one is assigned any specific part as regards the actual inflicting of injuries to the deceased and injured persons is concerned. The learned State Counsel argues that even mere presence is sufficient to make the petitioners constructively liable for the offences of murder etc. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that if a person, who is attributed a proverbial lalkara can be released on bail, the case of the present petitioners stands on better footing because mere presence will not make them liable for an offence under section 302, P. P. C.
3. Since it is conceded by the learned State Counsel that the case of the present petitioners is not in any way distinguishable from that of Ghulam Muhammad who has already been released on bail, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am inclined to extend the same concession to the present petitioners except Sher Muhammad son of Pathana. Manka, who is an injured person, has to very clear words stated that he was injured by Sher Muhammad accused. In this situation, the case of Sher Muhammad accused stands on a different footing. His application is, therefore, dismissed. The other petitioners viz. Abdul Sattar, Charagh, Muhammad Yar and Ahmad are granted bail provided each of them furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfac--petition of the Assistant Commissioner, Khanewal. However, it is made clear that the trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the present petitioners if sufficient legal evidence is found against them after recording the evidence of the eyes-witnesses.
The office is directed to return the record of the case to the committing Magistrate without any further delay.