1. On the statement of complainant, Muhammad Jamil, a case under the provision of section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioners and one Muhammad Yasin.
2. The background of the case as narrated in the F.I.R. Is that two years before the occurrence, brother of the complainant namely Muhammad Ismail developed illicit connection with one Mst. Sheeman who was also abducted by the brother of the complainant but on account of the intervention of the elders of Punchayat, Mst. Sheeman was restored. The father of Mst. Sheeman, Noor Jamal gave the hand of Mst. Sheeman in marriage to his own nephew namely Muhammad Yasin who threatened Muhammad Ismail, the brother of the complainant that he would teach him a lesson for having abducted Mst. Sheeman.
3. On the fateful night all the inmates of the house were sleeping in the courtyard of the house, when on some noise, the complainant, his mother Mst. Karam Elahi, his father Muhammad Sadiq, his brothers Ramzan and Muhammad Ismail awoke and they noticed in the moonlight that Muhammad Yaseen armed with a gun alongwith the petitioners who were armed with Dangs had entered their house after having scaled over the wall. Noor Samand, petitioner, then proceeded towards the main gate of the house and opened it from inside. It is further narrated in the F.I.R. That all three petitioners raised Lalkara to kill Muhammad Ismail so as to teach a lesson for the abduction of Mst. Sheeman and, therefore, in the sight of the eye-witnesses Muhammad Yaseen fired a fatal shot hitting the chest of Muhammad Ismail, deceased, and thereafter Muhammad Yaseen and the petitioners ran away by the main gate of the house.
4. In support of this bail application, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since all the petitioners are real brothers, therefore, a wide net has been thrown so that the entire family is roped in. 1t is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioners and it is joint Lalkara which cannot be raised and if it is assumed that the allegation of Lalkara is correct, even then, it is proverbial in nature. It is next contended by the learned counsel that during the first investigation, the petitioners were declared innocent.
5. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently controverts all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the finding as to the innocence of the petitioners was given in haste and that too, only after one day of occurrence and the same has been overruled by the A.S.P., Burewala who also conducted the investigation, in this case.
6. It may be noticed here that Noor Samand petitioner is father of Muhammad Yaseen whereas the other two petitioners are brothers of Noor Samand and uncles of Muhammad Yaseen. It seems that entire family has been roped. Since no overt act has been attributed to the petitioners and even if their presence is established, it will be a case of vicarious liability which will have to be determined by the trial Court after recording the evidence and hence the case of the petitioners falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. And being a case of further enquiry, I direct that the petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes security in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Sahiwal.
7. N.H.Q./N-87/L