' A case under section 324/34/109, P.P.C. Was registered against the respondents Nos.1 to 3 and one of their co-accused namely Khushhal Din on the ground that they demanded Rs,50,000 from Gull Khan P.W. Allegedly as Gunda Tax. On refusal Khushhal Din while armed with .30 bore pistol confronted Gull Khan P.W. Whereupon Siraj Din respondent shouted Lalkara that the victim be taught lesson for refusing to pay the aforesaid amount. Khushhal Din fired 6/7 shots causing injuries on the legs of the victim. Siraj Din respondent No,1 also made 6/7 fires from .30 bore pistol but missed the victim. The occurrence had allegedly taken place on the instigation and abetment of Jamal Din i,e, father of Khushhal Din and his son Bismillah Din. As such injuries were caused to the victim by Khushhal Din whereas ineffective firing was made by Siraj Din and conspiracy was allegedly attributed to Jamal Din and Bismillah Din.
2. The bail petition to the extent of Khushhal Din was dismissed whereas the remaining respondents namely Siraj Din, Jamal Din and Bismillah Din were admitted to bail vide the impugned order on the ground that according to the investigation it was not proved that Sire Din was armed with .30 bore pistols or he had made firing. Likewise the story about the conspiracy and abetment in respect of Jamal Din and Bismillah Din was also considered to be doubtful because of delay in examining the witnesses against them.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents' bails are liable to be cancelled because there was sufficient proof on the file that two of them were guilty of conspiracy whereas Siraj Din was having .30 bore pistol and had made firing while raising Lalkara. In such a situation the vicarious liability of respondents co-existed with the principal accused namely Khushhal Din who had caused injuries to the victim. Reliance was placed on Amir Khan v. The State reported as 1970 SCM R 789, Ghulam Nabi and another v. The State reported as 1989 PCr.LJ 126 and Choragi Din and others v. The State reported as PLD 1967 SC 340.
4. Further elaborating the facts it was contended that according to the principle laid down in the above authorities, the accused raising Lalkara were declined bail. Similarly the accused guilty of abetment and conspiracy were also not entitled to bail, in view of sharing common intention with the principle accused.
5. We have considered the foregoing submissions and find that there is no cavil with the principle laid down in the above authorities but each case has to be decided on its own merits. In the instant case, respondents Nos.2 and 3 were involved on the statements of P.Ws., which were obtained on 10-5-1998. In view of these delayed statements, the allegation of conspiracy and abetment attributed to the aforesaid respondents called for further inquiry particularly when they were not present at the spot. It has rightly been observed by the learned Trial Court that if the aforesaid witnesses had gained previous knowledge about the conspiracy prior to the occurrence, then in pursuance of the ordinary course of nature, they should have reported the matter to the police. As such the question of conspiracy and abetment remain wide open for inquiry during the trial.
According to the investigation, respondent Siraj Din was found empty-handed and -did not make any fire which makes his case also a case of further inquiry.
6. In view of the above situation, the learned Trial Court had rightly released all the three respondents on bail. We find no ground for cancellation of the bails already granted to the respondents by the learned Trial Court. This petition is dismissed in limited.