' The facts leading to present application for bail are that applicants Dilmurad, Abdullah alias Bedo and Ranjhan alias Ranjho are facing trial before learned 111rd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana in a case under sections 324, 337-Q and 337-R read with sections 147 and 148, P.P.C. Arising out of P.I.,R. No,104 of 1998 of Taluka Police Station, Larkana.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as alleged in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Syed Zawar Husain Shah are that his brother Syed Sada Hussain Shah used to lute the students privately. One Azhar son of Muhammad Malook Hajano was also amongst his students. On 5-10-1998 Dilmurad uncle of the boy Azhar protested that Sada Hussain Shah should not come for tutoring the boys as he is committing sodomy with boy Azhar Hussain and he will also not permit his brother to go for tuition to Sada Hussain Shah. It is further alleged that on the day of incident Sada Hussain Shah and his younger brother Muzaffar Hussain went to Larkana on cycle and at about 8 O'clock when they returned home, complainant saw that upper lip and nose of Sada Husain Shah were cut and he was bleeding. On enquiry, Sada Hussein Shah disclosed that while returning from Larkana when they reached near garden of Ghulam Asghar Shah they saw Dilmurad, Zulfiqar alias Bhutto, Zaman alias Zamoon, Abdullah alias Bedo and Ranjhan alias Ranjho who stopped them. Accused Zulfiqar alias Bhutto and Zaman alias Zamoon were armed with knives. Abdullah alias Bedo was armed with T.T. Pistol, Hanjhan and Dilmurad were armed with Lathies. The persons armed with Lathies caught hold of Muzaffar All while rest of the accused removed him towards garden where Abdullah pointed pistol at him while Zulfiqar and Zaman cut his upper lip and nose. In the meantime some firing was made from village Shahul Khan Chandio whereupon accused decamped due to fear of police. Complainant after leaving his brother in Larkana Hospital, went to police station where he lodged the F.I.R.
3. Applicants applied for bail before the trial Court but it was refused vide impugned order, dated 12-1-1999.
4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ahmed Ali Shaikh, Advocate for complainant and Mr. Rashid Ali Shaikh, Advocate for A.A.-G. For the State.
Latter opposed the grant of bail.
5. The allegation of chopping of the nose and lip of Sada Hussain Shah has been attributed to Zulfiqar and Zaman who were said to be armed with knives. No Lathi or fire-arm injury was found on the person of the injured nor it is alleged that they used the same in the commission of offence.
It is also pertinent to mention that no recovery of alleged weapons of offence was made from the applicants.
6. The question of vicarious liability or common intention could only be determined at the time of trial, thus, case necessitates further enquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P,C, In this context I am fortified by the decision of Honourable Supreme Court in case of Muhammad v. The State 1998 SCM R 454.
7. By my short order, dated 15-1-1999 bail was granted to the applicants and above are the reasons for the same.