1. ' The F.I.R. In this case registered on 13-5-1996 for offences under sections 324, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and 34, P.P.C. Subsequently injured Muhammad Ayub died and challan was submitted under sections 302 and 34, P.P.C. In this challan name of one of the accused Muhammad Aslam was shown in column No,2.
2. ' Learned Advocate for applicant submits that according to F.I.R. It was accused Mubeen who had fired at Muhammad Ayub thereby causing his death. Applicant did not cause any injury and he is only shown to be present with Lathi. He submits that the 3rd brother of the applicant was shown to be present with hatchet but he was let off by police. He has requested for bail on the ground that the liability of applicant is only on account of section 34.
3. Learned A.A.-G. Strongly opposed the grant of bail to the applicant on the ground that his name has been mentioned in the F.I.R. And he was armed with Lathi. Lathi was subsequently recovered from him. His intention is proved because he was brother of the main accused who fired the fatal shot thereby causing death of Muhammad Ayub.
4. ' The post-mortem report of deceased Muhammad Ayub reveals only fire-arm injury. There is allegation that applicant was present with Lathi at the time of incident. There is no allegation that he had used the Lathi causing any injury to any person. In this case three (3) accused named in the F.I.R. Are brothers. One of them namely Muhammad Aslam was shown in column No,2 of the challan. To that extent Investigating Officer did not believe the prosecution case as set up in the F.I.R. The question at this stage is whether the applicant is liable by virtue of section 34. The fatal injury is not attributed to him although the prosecution has challaned him for offence under section 34 although his brother Muhammad Aslam has been let off, this may show the fairness of investigation but even then the question remaining whether the applicant shared the common intention. As this fact cannot be resolved at this stage the benefit can be given to applicant because he did not cause any injury. I, therefore, grant him bail subject to furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs,1,50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court because it is a case where further enquiry is required.