1. ' Applicant Majid Latif who is detained in Crime No, 103/91 under section 302/307, P.P.C. Has approached this Court for bail. His first application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) on 19-12-1991. Bail Application No, 20/92 before this Court was dismissed on 21-1- 1992. Second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant was rejected by the Incharge of the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) on 13-1-1993. The third bail application moved by the applicant is rejected by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East) on 7-9-1993 and thereafter the present bail application has been filed before this Court.
2. ' F.I.R. Was lodged by Faisal Rasheed on 4-4-1991 in which he stated that on 3-4-1991, he alongwith his uncle Furqan, maternal-brother Adnan Farooqui and younger brother Ali Ahmed were going in their Lancer car from Bahadurabad to Shrafabad. Near Shrafabad crossing two persons riding a motor-cycle and armed with guns came in front of the car and stopped it. The complainant and the others, apprehending that the culprits might abduct them or rob the car, turned the car towards a lane when a bullet fired by one of the culprits hit Adnan Farooqui and Furqan Farooqui, breaking the rear glass of the car. Some people gathered at the Vardat and so also the culprits riding the motor-cycle. Although complainant desired that his brother be shifted to hospital but no one came forward to render help in that regard. Subsequently injured Adnan Farooqui died on 8-4- 1991 and injured Furqan Farooqui is still stated to be in comma. Applicant Majid Latif and co- accused Iqbal who are both police constables were arrested on 15-4-1991.
3. ' I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. It has been contended that applicant was on duty alongwith co-accused Iqbal when the car of the complainant was given a signal to stop and since the car did not stop, P.C. Iqbal fired at the car under a belief that the persons in the car were criminals and had not obeyed the direction of the police to stop the car. It is further argued that in his evidence, complainant Faisal Rasheed has admitted that the accused Muhammad Iqbal had fired at the car and the applicant Majid Latif was driving the motor-cycle.
4. Thus, it is pointed out that the vicarious liability of the applicant would be determined by the trial Court and till then case of applicant being distinguishable, requires further enquiry and he would be entitled to bail. In support of this contention learned Advocate referred to the case of Sohna v.
5. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 779. It is next argued that out of 28 witnesses cited in the challan, only 6 witnesses have been examined and applicant is in custody since 15-4-1991 and although bail application is not pressed on the ground of statutory delay, yet, because the delay in conclusion of trial is shocking and scandalous, the applicant would be entitled to bail. In support of this contention learned Advocate has referred to the cases of Sanam Shah and 10 others v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 2947 and Barkhurdar v. Liaquat Ali and 2 others PLD 1977 SC 434.
6. ' Bail is opposed by learned Advocate appearing for the State and Mr. Khawaja Adeel Ahmed Advocate for the complainant. It is argued that although a number of witnesses are named in the challan, only one more eyewitness, medical officer and the investigation officer would be examined and perhaps the rest of the witnesses would be given up. It is also argued that since the trial has commenced and is at its fag-end, mere delay in a case like this where one person has died, cannot be considered as a ground for grant of bail. In support of this contention the learned counsel has referred to the cases of Naseebullah v. The State 1991 SCM R 2450 and Mian Dad v. The State and another 1992 SCM R 1418.
7. ' The record shows that before the F.I.R. No, 103 of 1991 was lodged by complainant Faisal Rasheed, F.I.R. No, 102/91 was filed by accused lqbal under section 307/353/34, P.P.C. In respect of the same incident. The perusal of the F.I.R. And evidence of complainant shows that the fatal shot was fired by accused Iqbal while applicant Majid Latif was driving the motor-cycle. Whether the applicant also shared common intention would be a matter requiring further enquiry. The applicant has been in custody since 15-4-1991 and the delay in disposal of the case is not only shocking but also scandalous. Case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Iqbal who fired at the car. As pointed out earlier, case of applicant in my view requires further enquiry and I am inclined to grant him bail. Applicant Majid Latif shall be released on bail on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.