' Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,132, dated 11-4-1996 under section 302/324/452/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Civil Line, Gujranwala, The aforementioned case was registered at the instance of Malik. According to first informant, Nawaz, Shakeel, Aamir used to sit in front of their house in open ground and they were forbidden to do so. About three days prior to the occurrence, the first informant repeated his demand which led to exchange of hot words. It is the prosecution case at about 7-45 p.m., Aamir, Nawaz, Shakeel, Ijaz and Abdul Mannan (petitioner) armed with .222 bore Tauseef armed .30 bore pistol entered into the house and started firing with their weapons being carried by them. Nasir, who was present in kitchen was injured and died at the spot. The first informant was also injured and then fired at the assailants with his shotgun. Tauseef and Nawaz accaised were injured as a result of firing by the complainant. The first informant and his son were being taken to hospital and were again attacked by the accused while they were present in the Emergency Ward, Muhammad Ijaz was injured there.
2. Petitioner was arrested and has applied for grant of bail to him.
3. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that he was declared innocent twice and that police for the reason did not take him into custody. It was submitted that opinion of the police in this regard was supported by the material on record which consisted of statements of large number of persons including four Advocates. It was also submitted that allegation against the petitioner was of general nature and he had not been ascribed any specific injury to the deceased or the injured prosecution witnesses. It was submitted that petitioner had no motive and did not have any such relationship with other accused with whom the complainant party had quarrelled over their sitting in front of the complainant's house. It was submitted that all these factors made the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry and he deserved the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand seriously opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. It was contended that the accused who were members of a student organization attacked the complainant party while they were present in their own house over a trivial matter and then again in the hospital and the petitioner who was duly armed had fired at the complainant party; was adequately connected with the commission of offence and did not deserve the concession of bail particularly when his conduct exhibited him to be a dangerous criminal.
4. According to the prosecution, petitioner is one of the accused who while armed with .222 bore rifle and .30 bore pistol trespassed into the house of the complainant, had taken part in the shooting at the complainant party, as a result of which, son of complainant Nasir lost his life. The accused, thereafter, allegedly attacked the complainant party while they were being treated in the Hospital. However, in the subsequent investigation conducted, the police came to the conclusion that petitioner had not taken part in the incident. He was declared innocent in two different investigations and was not even taken into custody by the police. The allegations against the petitioner are of general nature. The extent of his criminality, culpability and vicarious liability are matters which would best be determined at the trial of the case.
5. For the present, case of the petitioner is considered to be that of further inquiry. Petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,2,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.