' A case under section 302/337-A(i)/ 337-F(i)/377-F(iv)/148/149, P . P .0 . Was registered against the petitioner and others vide F.I.R. No,37 of 1998 dated 8-2-1998 at Police Station Saddar Pattoke, District Kasur on the ground that he while armed with a gun continued firing during the transaction when his co-accused caused injuries to the deceased Qamar Din aged 45 years which resulted into his death.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been found so in two investigations conducted in the case; that he has been involved on account of local grouping in the village; that there is no motive regarding the commission of offence; that the petitioner has been assigned no specific injury nor the sidrne is borne out by the medico-legal report; that the deceased after receiving injuries was admitted in the local hospital instead of sending him to a Specialised hospital such as General Hospital or Mayo Hospital, Lahore which allegedly shows that the deceased was not seriously injured; that the injuries of butt blows were not found on the person of the deceased as alleged; that the petitioner had taken up the plea of alibi that he was not present at the spot and had falsely been implicated in the case on the basis of cooked up evidence. Lastly, it is contended that had he been armed with a gun as alleged by the prosecution, there was nothing in his way to shoot at the deceased which he never did showing that story of the prosecution was concocted falsely; that even no empty was recovered from the spot in order to show that the gun was actually used. Reliance was placed on 1997 PCr.11 767 (Karachi), 1998 PCr.LI 968 (Karachi) and 1994 PCr.LJ 1411 (Lahore).
3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner was named in the FIR and was assigned a specific role during the occurrence; he was allegedly a spear-head of his accomplices as he was carrying gun and was making firing scaring every one not to come near the place of occurrence. Due to the above role on the part of the petitioner, the other co-accused took advantage and caused fatal injuries to the deceased; that the weapon of offence i,e, the gun was recovered from the petitioner which further linked him with the occurrence; that there was no material delay in filing the F.I.R. As the complainant party took care of the deceased to save his life as he was seriously injured. The medical evidence allegedly supported the ocular account of occurrence; that the petitioner having been involved in a case of murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life has no case for bail particularly when his plea of alibi has been rejected and he his been sent to face the trial upon the basis of last investigation conducted in the case by the Crimes Branch. The co-accused of the petitioner are still at large having absconded. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioner has no case for bail.
4. I have considered the foregoing submission and have also gone through the case-law referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It may be pointed out that each criminal case has its own facts and no Universal principle can be laid down for dealing with all the cases based on different facts. In the instant case, the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. He was heading the party of the 'assailants causing fatal injuries to the deceased, while armed with a gun. He was also firing from the gun so that nobody should come near and was exhorting his co-accused to commit the occurrence after deboarding the victim from the bus. He was also raising Lalkara while firing that if anybody dared to come near, he would meet the same fate as of the deceased.
5. After taking the above role of the petitioner into consideration, it is not possible to say at this stage that the petitioner was not vicariously liable with his co-accused particularly when he had given butt blows to the deceased on his leg. The contention that there is some contradiction in the medico-legal report in respect of the injuries, would call for deeper appreciation at the time of trial and cannot be readily answered at this stage. The petitioner has been found guilty during the last investigation conducted by the Crimes Branch and has been sent up to the Court for trial.
6. In the light of the above fact, there are reasons to believe that he is involved m the offence of murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life falling with the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
' The petitioner has no case for bail at this stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed.