1. RASHID AZIZ, KHAN J.-- Ghulam Mustafa petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him and some others with Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, District Okara, for an offence under sections 302/148/149 PPC vide FIR dated 5.8.1990. The allegations, as contained in the FIR lodged by Muhammad Ashraf, arc to the effect that the first informant's younger brother had abducted one Mst. Fayyaz Bibi, daughter of Fiaz Ahmad. Because of this hostility the parties were proceeded against for breach of peace. On 5.8.1990 both the sides appeared before Ilaqa Magistrate, Depalpur Whereby the accused side was released on bail first but the complainant side was released on bail subsequently. After being bailed out the first informant with his mother Mst: Ghulam Fatima, and brother Muhammad Aslam and Allah Ditta boarded a wagon for their house.
2. First Informant's mother and brother get into the wagon while the others sat on the roof of the wagon. When the wagon reached near the land of Azhar Khan Lodhi, the petitioner signalled the same to stop. When it stopped, Arshad, Abbas, Rehmat Ali, all armed with l2 bore guns, and Riaz armed with pistol emerged from the nearby fields and came towards the wagon. In the meanwhile, a motorcycle, on which Anwar, armed with pistol l2 bore, and Ashraf armed with l2 bore gun also came there. The accused persons directed the passengers to get down from the wagon as they wanted to take revenge for the abduction of Mst. Fayyaz Bibi. The passengers got down from the wagon and started running. The first informant with Allah Ditta and Muhammad Yasin also got down from the roof of the wagon and ran away with other passengers. First informant's mother Mst.
3. Ghulam Fatima and his brother Muhammad Aslam were not permitted to got down from the wagon. In the meanwhile, all the accused persons started firing indiscriminately resulting in the death of Muhammad Aslam and Mst. Ghulam Fatima.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not even connected with the previous molive. Submits that he is not related with either side. Asserts that admittedly the petitioner was empty handed and had signalled the wagon to stop with a view to board the same.
5. Argues that no overt act whatsoever is ascribed to the petitioner.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. In the proceedings under section 107/151 Cr.P.C., the petitioner does not figure anywhere. No overt act whatsoever is ascribed to the petitioner. According to the FIR, it is not even certain that after the commission of the offence, the petitioner left the spot with other assailants. The petitioner is not even alleged to have raised a lalkara or made any signal to the co-accused, sitting in ambush, indicating that the other side was in the wagon. In these circumstances, I feel, involvement of the petitioner primatical requires further probe. 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.