' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Ghulam Nabi petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court dated 16-1-1994 whereby his petition for bail in a murder case was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that four years prior to the occurrence Feroze complainant married his daughter Mst. Sharifan with the petitioner and she started living in his house at Shandad Kot. Sometime prior to the occurrence the complainant visited her in the house of the petitioner and she complained that she was being maltreated by the petitioner. She was lying ill and had marks of kick and fist blows on her body. The petitioner told the complainant to take her away for treatment and he took her to his house. A few days later the petitioner went to the house of the complainant to take back his wife on which the complainant asked him to furnish some security for good behavior over which he got annoyed and retorted that his daughter would be no more in this world, therefore, no need for surety would arise.
3. On the night between 1/2-8-1993 at 1-00 a.m. The complainant, his wife Mst. Fatima, Mst. Sharifan deceased, Muhammad Panah and Rato P.Ws were sleeping in the house when co-accused Ghulam Sarwar armed with a pistol, Imam BArchs armed with a gun and the petitioner armed with hatchet trespassed into the house and on being asked by the complainant as to why they had come there the accused armed with fire-arms fired at Mst. Sharifan resulting in her instantaneous death. The petitioner is alleged to have advanced threats that whosoever came near would be done away with.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no injury to the deceased has been attributed to the petitioner, therefore, his case is of further inquiry and he is entitled to the concession of the bail. .5. After considering the above submission in the light of material available on the record we do not find it a fit case for interference with the discretionary order of the High Court. The occurrence took place in the house of the complainant, therefore, the inmates of the house are the most natural witnesses of the occurrence and the petitioner is the only person having motive to do away with the deceased. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly observed that prima facie the principle of vicarious liability was attracted. In the circumstances no ground for the interference with the impugned order is made out. The petition is dismissed.