' The complainant's case was that six persons variously armed with fire arms, including Dost Muhammad petitioner who was allegedly armed with a 7 m.m rifle mounted an assault at about 9.00 p.m. On 21-11-1996; fired indiscriminately and that as a result of a shot fired by a co-accused of the present petitioner, namely, Karam Dad, Rab Nawaz deceased lost his life. It was also mentioned in the F.I.R. That the firing by the accused persons continued for about half an hour.
2. According to the investigation conducted by the S.H.O. And then finalised by the D.S.P., the accused party had previous enmity with the deceased of the present case; that on the night of occurrence, the accused party was taking Mehndi in connection with marriage of one Rab Nawaz Sipra; that Rab Nawaz deceased had told these people not to pass from in front of his house; that the Mehndi party i,e, the accused party, however, passed from in front of the house of the deceased while firing shots and that thereafter firing ensued between the two sides which continued for about half an hour and that as a result of the shot fired by Karam Dad accused, Rab Nawaz deceased got killed.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it had been found by the Investigating Officer that it was the deceased who had initiated the proceedings by firing shots at the accused party. I have gone through the police file and no such finding exists on the record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also canvassed bail for Dost Muhammad petitioner on the ground that he stood burdened with ineffective firing and that he was not connected with the motive part of the story.
5. At time, persons accused of ineffective firing are released on bail not because a person accused of such a role in an occurrence is not guilty of any offence or that he was, as a matter of principle, entitled to the concession of bail but because of the possibility that such an accused person might well have been made victim of widening of the net and there being a possibility of such an accused person having been falsely implicated. If, however, there be reasonable grounds for believing that an accused person had actually participated in the occurrence and had fired shots, though ineffective, then' the concession of bail might not been available to him because of his being vicariously liable for the offences in question having actively participated in the occurrence.
6. In the present case, there are consistent findings of the Insvestigating Officers that the petitioner was present in the Mehndi party; that he was armed and that he had also indulged in indiscriminate firing which had gone on for at least half an hour.
7. Even if it be conceded that no injury was attributed to the petitioner, what stands admitted on record is that indiscriminate firing had gone on in the occurrence in question for about half an hour and the petitioner was one of the persons who being armed with a Rifle had indulged in this firing of shots, Going with a Mehndi procession and arming one-self with fire arms and then in the process resorting to firing shows a reckless conduct on the part of the petitioner which disentitles him to any concession or relief in equity.
' Consequently, I do riot feel persuaded to extend the concession of bail to him and this petition is dismissed.