Jaffar V. The Slate (Rashid Aziz Khan, J)-RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.- Jaffar, Mirza, Saleem and Sarang petitioners seek bail in a case registered with Police Station Tandliamvala. District Faisalabad for offences under sections 148/379/309/411/149 PPC vide FIR No. 2^6, dated 9- 5-1996. Case was got registered against the petitioners and others on tie statement of Hassan Ali with the allegation that on 9-5-19% first informant with jhis brothers Choghalta, Naika and Mohammad Saeed (deceased) were ploughing "their land. After a while Choghatta and Naika went to their laud square No. 49. At about 1.00 noon they heard fire-arm shots from the house of Shauka! Ali. First informant's brother Muhammad Saeed who was sitting under a tree was hit. First informant with others ran towards Muhammad Saeed. In the meanwhile, from the house of Ihata of Shauka!, petitioners with their co- accused emerged while firing. Petitioner Mirza raised lalkara whereupon Muhammad Saeed statted running. Jaffar fired with 222 bore rifle. It was followed by Khadim Hussain who also fired at Muhammad Saeed who fell down. After the occtnrence, the assailants decamped. Muhammad Saeed expired on account of injuries.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the' involvement of the petitioner on the face of it is not established. Argued that the case was got registered on account of previous enmity. The investigating Agency at the conclusion opined that the petitioners had not participated in the commission pf murder instead they were not even present at the spot.
According to the finding of the Investigating Agency after the occurrence when the accused reached in front of the house of one Zulfiqar, Mirza and Sarang petitioners were standing armed with gum whereas Saleem and Jaffar were empty handed. The petitioners at that stage had fired in the air. Learned counsel contended that cventf this be accepted, the firing was done by the petitioners after the occurrence had already been committed and in such circumstances sharing of common Object is not established. Contentions were opposed.
3. I have heard Seamed counsel lor the parties and gone through die file. Though petjtioners are named in the FIR yet subsequently after thorough investigarionj police opined that they neither participated in the occurrence nor were present at the spot. The police submitted chailan under section'173 Cr.P.C, giving the same findings regarding the petitioners. Even if the findings of the Investigating Officer that at the time of occurrence petitioners were presently a distance of IV* acre from the spot and after the murder had been committal they also fired in the air is accepted yet by no/stretch of imagination reach to the conclusion that the petitioners had also shared common object while standing at such a distance for committing the murder. Prima facie it appears to be a case of further inquiry. Accordingly petitioners are allowed bail provided each of which furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) each with to sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial/Duty Magistrate, Faisalabad: