IHSAN UL-HAQ CHAUDHARY, J. - The petitioner has been cited as one of the accused in a case under section 302/307/148/149 PPC registered with P.S Mankera District BhakkarAccording to the FIR recorded at the instance of Muhammad Ramzan the accused party desired that the complainant should not purchase land but the latter refused to accede to their illegal request. The accused once again approached the complainant side for this purpose and this time hot words were exchanged between the parties. The accused side threatened the complainant side of the dire consequences. It is added that on the date of occurrence the accused came armed on a tractor and attacked. It is further alleged that Wazira Patwari and Muhammad Aslam fired wih their respective weapons which hit Khan Muhammad while gave a butt blow to Jan Muhammad on thigh. This was followed by fired by Amir Khan hitting Jan Muhammad on the left flgnk while petitioner was accused of giving butt blows to the complainant. These are the allegations in not shell as contained in the FIR, according to which the petitioner was attributed butt blows to the complainant. The petitioner applied for bail to the learned trial Court but the same was rejected vide order dated 25.7.90. The petitioner has now filed the present application and notice was issued to the State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that although period of two years has elapsed yet the trial against his client has not been concluded, therefore, he is entitled to benefit of proviso III to section 497(1) Cr.P.C. It is added that the petitioner has not caused any injury whatsoever to the deceased and according to the allegations against him he caused injuries only to the complainant, the same have been declared simple.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has nothing to controvert the argument of the learned counse for the petitioner on the ground of delay in the conclusion of trial and submitted that the petitioner was memeber of unlawful assembly and cannot avoid the consequences of vicarious liability therefore, he is rot entitled to bail.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The admitted position on record is that the petitioner was arrested on 6.1.1988 and was sent to judicial lockup on 26.1,88. The trial of the case has not been concluded against him uptill this date. The learned State counsel admitted that the petitioner's case is not covered by mischief of proviso to section 497(1) Cr.P.C, therefore, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by proviso and he is entitled to bail.
The result is that this application is allowed. The petitioner is admitted to bail pending the decision of the case against him subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees saventy thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.