' The petitioners alongwith others are involved in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Sillanwali District Sargodha vide F.I.R. No,107 of 1998 dated 30-3-1998. The report was lodged by Maqbool Ahmad son of Abdul Ghani for the murder of one Abdul Ghafoor.
2. It is contended that bail application of Muhammad Rashid (Criminal Miscellaneous No,1180-B of 1999) was accepted by this Court vide order dated 20-4-1999 and he was admitted to bail; that the case of the petitioners is not distinguishable from the case of aforesaid Rashid; that both the petitioners were empty-handed and attributed lalkara only; that no overt act was attributed to them although fatal fire was attributed to Tanvir Ahmad, who is the principal accused in this case; that petitioner Saeed Ahmad also sustained 5 injuries, which were suppressed in the F.I.R.; that investigation conducted initialy by two police officials lead to the conclusion that it was a case of cross-version. However, the 3rd investigation conducted by a senior police officer held the accused party as aggressor and thereupon report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted against all the accused. Lastly it was contended that it is a case of further inquiry as the question of aggressor or aggressed is yet to be determined and that keeping in view the principle of consistency the petitioners are entitled to bail as their role is not distinguishable from Rashid accused.
3. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition on the ground that trouble in this case had started due to an altercation and exchange of abuses between the petitioner Saeed Ahmad and the deceased Abdul Ghafoor, which ultimately led to the unfortunate murder and as such the aforesaid Saeed Ahmad was the main character in the occurrence. It was also contended that possibility of injuries having been manipulated later on could not be ruled out as medical examination of the injured accused Saeed was conducted about 6 days after the occurrence; that vicarious liability of the petitioners would extend with the liability of principal accused Tanvir Ahmad who had made fatal fire at the chest of the deceased. As such allegedly there was no case for bail.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the petitioners case stand at better footing than the case of Rashid who has been admitted to bail by this Court. Both the petitioners were empty-handed and were attributed proverbial lalkara whereas Tanvir Ahmad was the principal accused for firing fatal shot at the deceased. The plea of cross-version was initially accepted by two Investigating Officers, which would make it a case of further inquiry. Suppression of injuries on the person of petitioner Saeed Ahmad can also be taken into consideration for the limited purpose of bail without making deeper appreciation' about the merits of the case. The questions of aggressor or aggressed and vicarious liability are yet wide open, and would be determined on the basis of evidence recorded during the trial.
5. In view of the foregoing observations, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bails in the sum of Rs, one lac each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.