This is after arrest bail petition moved by Muhammad Amjad son of Ghulam Din in a case registered against him and other co-accused vide F.I.R. No.176/95, dated 10-6-1995 at Police Station Mitru, for the commission of murder of Ghulam Ahmad and Zahoor Ahmad on the night between 9th and 10th of June, 1995 in the area of Village Chak No.205/W.B. Within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mitru District Vehari. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That the petitioner drove Honda Motorcycle CD- 70 and his co-accused Shaukat armed with .222 rifle while sitting on his back came to the place of occurrence where co-accused fired with his rifle and caused the death of Ghulam Ahmad and Zahoor Ahmad.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not armed, even has not raised Lalkara during the occurrence. He had no pre-hand information about the occurrence. Further submits that Honda Motorcycle CD-70 has not been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and facts of the case require some amount of further enquiry.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the grant of bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And he has abetted the commission of offence.
4.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. It is an admitted fact that neither the petitioner was armed at the time of occurrence nor he took any active part in the occurrence. He has not even raised Lalkara. There is nothing on record which would indicate that the petitioner had any common intention to launch attack on the deceased or that he knew the designs of his co-accused. Mere presence of the petitioner at the time of occurrence would not prima facie constitute the offence under section 302, P.P.C. Application of section 34 will of course be determined by the trial Court. The police during investigation has not recovered Honda Motorcycle CD-70 from the possession of the petitioner.
6. For what has been stated above, the petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnished security in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Vehari.
7. All the observations made in this petition are tentative in nature and will have no baring at the time of trial. This petition stands disposed of.