The petitioner is. One of the accused in case FIR No. 19/96, dated 1.3.1996, under Sections 302/324/148/149/109 P.P.C., Police Station Muslim Town, Lahore. The allegation against him is that he alongwith his co-accused came to the spot, shouted and then also find ineffectively while his co- accused find at son of the complainant and others.
2. The petitioner was arrested in the case on 2.4.1997 and now has applied for grant of bail to him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was declared innocent in numerous investigations conducted and it was concluded by the Investigating Agency that he was not present at the spot. It was submitted that the petitioner never absconded and while preparing discharge report the fact was mentioned that the petitioner remained in the custody of the police, and therefore the story of abscission of the petitioner was fabricated, It was ^submitted that the petitioner was alleged to have ineffectively find during the incident and he would only be vicariously liable for offence under Sections 302/324 P.P.C, and thus he deserved the concession of bail particularly when his case was at par with the case of Muhammad Naseem Cheema, his co- accused who had been enlarged on bail by this Court. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner remained absconder for a period of one year and was declared proclaimed offender. After reinvestigation, the petitioner has been found guilty and has been challaned to Court as well, and that vicarious liability of the petitioner was borne out from the fact that he came to the place of occurrence duly armed, with his co- accused who were also carrying arms and had taken an active part in the incident.
4. The petitioner according to the allegations levelled in the FIR had come to the spot alongwith the co-accused and had shouted and then had also find but had not found any target. In the earlier investigation, he was found innocent and it wants opined by the Investigating Agency that the petitioner did not take part in the incident. Later he, how ever, was found guilty. The role ascribed to the petitioner was that of ineffective firing. Prima facie, and tentatively speaking, he will only be vicariously liable for offence under Section 302 P.P.C., etc. The extent of liability and criminality of the petitioner are matters which would best be determined by the Trial Court after evidence is recorded in the case.
4. No doubt, the petitioner was arrested belatedly by the police, but after surrendering to custody he can seek bail on other grounds available to him. Therefore, abscission of the petitioner would not stand in his way in seeking relief from this Court.
5. Keeping in view the background in which the incident took place and the role played by him during the incident, we consider the case of the petitioner to be that of further inquiry. The petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.