' The petitioner along with four others has been sent up to stand an inquiry for commission of offences under sections 148, 302 and 307 read with section 149, P.P.C.
2. The occurrence took place on 1741-1972, at about 9 p.m. And the F.I.R. Was lodged on 19-11-1972 at 9 a.m. At Police Station Renala Khurd which is at a distance of three miles from Chak No, 13/IAL where the occurrence took place. The deceased Abdul Ghafoor along with five others had been accused of the murder of Akhtar son of Khalil who was a brother of Aish accused and a cousin of the petitioner. The first informant, Yasin claims to have accompanied the deceased Abdul Ghafoor to the Dhari of Shahra co-accused of the petitioner. After the meals time the accused appeared in the Dhari of Shahra. Shahra had a pistol, the petitioner was armed with a hatchet and Faiz co- accused was armed with a Toka. Aish co-accused of the petitioner picked up the licensed gun of Abdul Ghafoor deceased, fired at him and said that he was revenging the murder of Akhtar. The deceased died there and then, and after he had fallen down, the petitioner is said to have caused him injuries with hatchet on the face. Shahra co-accused of the petitioner fired at the complainant with his pistol but the shot missed. He escaped and concealed himself in a sugar-cane field. The first informant approached the relatives of the deceased and then came to the police station to lodge the F.I.R.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that there being admittedly a background of enmity between the parties, it appears unlikely that Abdul Ghafoor deceased would choose to pay a visit to his adversaries where he could find nothing but danger.
4. It is further argued that it is very unlikely that Yasin the First Informant was present at the spot otherwise he would have lodged the F.I.R. With all speed in the police station which is at a distance of only three miles from the place of occurrence.
5. The learned counsel submits that according to the post-mortem examination the injuries on the face of the deceased were held to be post-mortem by the doctor.
6. It is also urged that no evidence has been recorded in this case so far, and the petitioner is being kept in prison with no prospect of the inquiry finalizing in the near future.
7. The learned counsel for the State submits that on the allegations as made in the F.I.R. The petitioner was one of the accused persons and he under the law is vicariously responsible for the act of his co-accused Aish who fired at the deceased. It is also his submission that the subsequent action of the petitioner also indicates his intention to do away with the life of the deceased.
8. The occurrence in this ease took place on 17-11-1972 and the report was lodged on 19-11-1972. The challan was filed in Court on 4-5-1973 but the learned Magistrate did not take any proceedings in the case because Aish, one of the co-accused of the petitioner, was absconding. He was arrested on 11-7-1973 and it took the police one month and ten days to complete challan against him. Even after that date there has been no progress in the case.
9. The report of the learned Magistrate shows that Aish accused was not produced in Court on two dates by the prosecution and on another two dates the prosecution failed to submit the supplementary challan against him. On one date the case property was not produced by the prosecution. The file also remained for some time before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal in connection with the bail application of the petitioner.
10. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was arrested on 19-11-1972. The police took more than five and a half months to file the challah against him. They failed to present the challah against Aish co-accused on two dates. The delay in this case therefore, is clearly attributable to the prosecution.
11. It is clear from the above narration of facts that the accused is in jail since 19-11-1972 without any evidence having been brought on record against him and he cannot be held responsible for this delay that has occurred during the inquiry. Even according to the report of the learned Magistrate the prosecution are responsible for the delay. I refrain from commenting on the question of delay in the F.I.R. And the improbability of the story canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but in view of the delay that has occurred in the case, I direct that petitioner shall be released on bail in the sum of Rs,20,000 (Rupees twenty