1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM J.- There is a Petition for special leave to appeal by Faiz Ahmad informant from the order dated 29th of March 1976 passed by learned Judge of the Lahore Sigh Court at Lahore allowing bail to Munir respondent in a case pending against him along with another under section 302/307, P. P. C.
2. Briefly the relevant facts as sated in the F. I. R. Are that on the 11th of September 1975, the complainant along with Nawab deceased and Sajwara P. W. Came out of the mosque after saying their Mahrab prayer when they were confronted by Munir respondent and Nazir co-accused. Munir respondent is alleged to have inflicted a knife blow to Sajwara P. W. On his left flan and Nawab deceased gave Sofa blows to Munir accused on his head, left shoulder, right leg and knee. On this Nasir accused gave a knife blow to the deceased at his abdomen resulting in his death on the way to the hospital. The F. I. R. About the occurrence was lodged by the petitioner at 11:00 p.m. At the Police Station Haveli, District Sahiwal.
3. According to the medical evidence Nawab deceased and Sajwara had one sharp-edged wound each and Munir respondent bad 9 blunt weapon injuries out of which one on his head was grievous and the rest simple.
4. The two accused applied for bail. On the 17th of December 1975. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal did not allow bail to Manir respondent but accepted the application of Nadir accused on the statement made by Muhammad Rafique Bajws. S. H. O., Police Station, Haveli to the effect thathe was found innocent in the course of the investigation. But afterwards on the 19th of March 1976, on an application moved by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the Additional Sessions Judge cancelled the bail allowed to Nasir accused on the ground that the opinion a pressed by Muhammad Rafique Bajwa, did not ultimately prevail and his name was put along with the other co-accused in column 3 of the challan.
5. Munir respondent also applied for bail in the High Court. On the 29th of March 1976, the High Court allowed bail to him. It was submitted before the High Court that the version of the occurrence given in the F I. R. Was not true inasmuch as it was the respondent who on coming out of the mosque had been attacked and given as many as 9 injuries and that he bad acted only in self-defence. In the counter case arising from the complaint filed by Falak Sher, Sajwara P. W. Has been summoned under section 307/325/202/34, P. P. C. It was also pointed out that the Imam of the mosque bad stated before the Police that Munir respondent had been in the mosque just before the occurrence and this circumstance lent support to the contention that he did not share the common intention with Nazir accused and made vicariously liable for the death of Nawab deceased. It is further argued before the High Court that the complainant was armed with laths and was the aggressor.
6. In the face of these contentions the High Court observed that on the basis of the facie narrated in the F. I. R. The question of vicarious liability of Munir respondent was an open question to be determined only after the evidence. He had himself received 9 injuries two of which were on the head and one of them was found by the medical officer to be grievous in nature. He was attributed to have inflicted a knife blow to Sajwara which was dangerous to life. The Court, therefore, observed that the question of his vicarious liability fell under subsection (2) 6f section 497, Cf. P. C. And admitted him to bail.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the State. As observed by the High Court Munir respondent had as many as 9 injuries on his person two of which were on the head and one of them was found to be grievous in nature. The knife injury inflicted by him to Sajwara is stated to have since been healed. The Imam of the mosque had stated before the Police that Munir respondent had teen in the mosque just before the occurrence and in the opinion of the High Court this circumstance prim facie raised a question as to whether he could be held to be vicariously liable with Nazir accused for having caused the death of Nawab deceased. In these circumstances tie High Court in the exercise of the discretion vested in it under the law allowed bail to the respondent. We. Therefore, find that it is not a fit case for interference by this Court by special leave to appeal against the impugned order lawfully passed by the High Court.` This petition has no form and is therefore, dismissed.