' The petitioner, who alongwith others, is involved in a case under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C.
Arising out of F.I.R. No,80/92, dated 17-2-1991, registered at Police Station Bhawana, District Jhang, seeks to be admitted to bail.
2. As per F.I.R., the petitioner is alleged to have resorted to ineffective firing with his .12 bore gun on the complainant Said Ahmad.
3. Learned counsel contended that the only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that of ineffective firing and that too when the deceased had received the fatal shot at the hands of his co-accused; hence there is no community of object between the petitioner and the principal acccused, so the case against the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry. In addition to that, learned counsel submitted that the presence of the petitioner at the scene is doubtful and in the presence of this material, the petitioner richly deserves the concession of bail, in view of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Placed reliance on 1990 P Cr. L J 691.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the Police Officer, has opposed this bail application. On 24-1-1993, this petition was adjourned to await the result of investigation which was being conducted by the Additional S.P., Faisalabad. Learned counsel informs that even in this investigation, the petitioner was found involved in the case. He submits that one who stands also contributes and the petitioner over and above this, opened fire with his gun, though ineffective; hence he, on the principle of vicarious liability as enshrined in section 149, P.P.C. Is involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause and is not entitled to bail. He has also referred to the order of this Court dated 15-12-1992, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,4665/B of 1992, in which bail application of Muhammad Mumtaz, who is similarly placed, was rejected by this Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. Petitioner's name is mentioned in the F.I.R. An overt act has been attributed to him, though of ineffective firing on the complainant.
The contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner opened fire after the deceased received the fatal shot, requires deeper appreciation of evidence. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel is distinguishable in the given circumstances; hence no case for grant of bail is made out.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.