1. ' The applicant is seeking bail in Crime No,80 of 2001, registered against him at Police Station Dadu, under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149 read with section 504, P.P.C.
2. ' The facts of case in brief are that on the day of incident i,e, 3-6-2001 complainant Ali Asghar registered an F.I.R. Stating therein that about 9/10 years back, one Majeed the brother of accused Sobdar Jamali and his father namely Malho Khan were murdered, in which case relative of complainant namely Allah Dino was challaned. Due to the said enmity accused Sobdar and others had shifted to Pandhi. On the day of incident the complainant ajongwith Allah Dino, Ghulam Jamali and Anis were going towards Dadu Town and at about 11-45 a.m. When they reached near the shop of Mir Jamali at Sehwan Road, accused Sobdar, Ghulam Hussain Jamali, Dhani Bux the present applicant, Allahyar and Mazar waylaid them. Accused Sobdar after abusing the complainant party asked them to run away as he will murder Allah Dino. He took out pistol from fold of his Shalwar and straightly fired upon Allah Dino who after sustaining injuries fell down on the ground. In the meanwhile accused Ghulam Hussain also took out pistol from the fold of his Shalwar and straightly fired upon Guhram who fell down having received bullet injuries. Subsequently Allah Dino died.
3. ' The applicant was arrested on 3-6-2001 and the case was challaned on 18-6-2001.
4. ' It was contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no role was ascribed to the present applicant and that the question of vicarious liability was to be determined at the stage of trial. The present applicant was entitled to bail. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case of Faraz Akram v. The State reported in 1999 SCM R 1360.
5. ' Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail on the ground that the present applicant was vicariously liable and that his name appeared in the F.I.R.
6. From the perusal of the facts disclosed in the F.I.R., it is quite clear that the present applicant was only present on the scene. Neither he was armed with any weapon nor did he partake in the scuffle.
7. Admittedly ho overt act has been attributed to the present applicant. It is settled principle of law that the question of vicarious liability is to be determined at the stage of trial. For the present the applicant will be liable for his own acts and he has not committed any overt act as apparent from the contents of F.I.R. The case of the present applicant is fully covered by the case-law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Faraz Akram v. The State reported in 1999 SCM R 1360. Thus making the case of the present applicant of further inquiry. The applicant is accordingly granted bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.