I. Granted.
2. Granted, but subject to all just legal exceptions.
3. This is an application for grant of hail to applicants, involved in Crime No,79 of 2000, registered with Police Station, B-Section Kandhkot, District Jacobabad, under sections 324, 334, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Facing trial in Sessions Case No,273 of 2000.
' The facts of the case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Are that on 1-11-2000 complainant Allah Dino alongwith Muhammad Ayoob and Ghulam Yasin after completing their work were returning from Kandhkot, when they reached at Bus Stop of Tangwani Minor, Allah Bux Tangwani met them. At 1300 hours while they reached near the village of Sobho Bhayo, they saw accused Mubarak with gun, Yaseen with gun, Arbab with hatchet, HusSain, Baban both with Lathis, Khaillan with gun, Ghulam Rabbani with Lathi, Shaban with Lathi, Bhaoo with Lathi, Sanharo with Lathi, Mahar with Lathi, Muhammad Bux with Lathi, Shah Murad with Lathi, Muhammad Murad with Lathi. As soon as the accused emerged, they started firing, Due to which Muhammad Ayoob and Allah Bux received injuries and then accused decamped. The motive behind the incident was 'Karap' upon the complainant's cousin Abdul Qadir. Police during investigation arrested accused Mubarak, Khillan, Ghulam Yasin, Ghulam Hussain, Sanharo, Muhammad Bux and Shah Murad and referred injured Allah Bux and Muhammad Ayoob to Hospital for treatment and cartificate. The crime weapons were recovered from accused. In Police Challan, accused Arban, Baban, Ghulam Rabbani, Shahban, Bhaoo, Mahar and Muhammad Murad were shown as absconders.
' Having failed to get bail from the trial Court, the applicants have applied for grant of bail.
' I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material placed on record.
' It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that no overt act .Has been attributed to the present applicants. He further submits that 14 persons belonging to the same family were roped in this case which itself is sufficient to believe that the applicants have been falsely implicated. He further contends that there is enmity between the accused persons and the complainant party. He argues that the injured sustained fire-arm injuries while the applicants were allegedly armed with Lathis.
' In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants has relied on the following case- law. I. 1999 SCM R 1320.
2. 1996 SCM R 1125.
3. 1987 SCM R 1906.
' Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the grant of bail alleging that the applicants were also vicariously liable.
' It is an admitted fact that there exists enmity between the complainant party and the accused persons which fact finds mention in the F.I.R. Itself. According to F.I.R. The present applicants were allegedly armed with Lathis which they did not use during the commission of the crime. The allegations have been specifically levelled against co-accused Yaseen Mubarak and Khillan for causing fire-arm injuries. It is also evident from the perusal of the F.I.R. That all the accused persons belong to one and the same family as such the false implication of applicants cannot be ruled out.
It is well-settled principle/proposition of law, that accused persons are liable to the punishment for the role which they played during the commission of the crime. Admittedly present applicants did not partake in causing injuries though they were allegedly armed with Lathis but they did not use the same. Medical certificate shows that the injured sustained fire-arm injuries.
' In the case of Mumtaz Hussain v. The State (1996 SCM R 1125), it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court as under:-- "The cases of the remaining accused namely Ghulam Raza, Ghulam Shabbir and Zafar Iqbal, however, are distinguishable as in spite of being allegedly armed with deadly weapons like rifle, gun and hatchet, they only caused simple blunt injuries to some of the P.Ws. Using the wrong side of their weapons. In these circumstances, whether they share common intention with those who caused death of deceased Siddique Umar needs further enquiry."
' In the case of Attaullah and others reported in 1999 SCM R 1320, the accused who were not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased were allowed bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by reversing the order of the High Court whereby the bail of the accused was cancelled.
' Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ayoob reported in 1987 SCM R 1906 was pleased to grant bail to those accused who were empty-handed accepting the plea of their false implication and further holding that their vicarious liability could only be determined by the trial Court. The above cited case law laid down by the apex Court is fully applicable in the instant bail application.
'In these circumstances, it is a case of further enquiry and as such the present applicants are entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly, the applicants are granted bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. These are the reasons of short order passed on 7-5-2001. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.