' Amanat Ali, the 'petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,375 dated 14-8-2002 under. Section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 14-8-2002 at about Eisha Wela, Shaan the son of complainant was returning to his house on bicycle from City Pakpattan Sharif. He when reached near the Dera of Ahmad Ali Kharal, all of a sudden Ansar armed with rifle triple bore, Akhtar with gun .12 bore, Amanat with gun .12 bore and Ahmad Ali with Sota came out of the same. Ahmad Ali raised Lalkara that Shaan be taught lesson for the murder of his nephew Muhammad Saeed. On the same Ansar fired with .222 bore rifle on him (Shan), which hit him on the upper left thigh and he fell down. Ahmad All inflicted him Sota blows hitting on his backside of the chest. Akhtar and Amanat made firing and raised Lalkara that whoever came near would be killed. Then Akhtar and Amanat dragged him to the Dera. Meanwhile, the people were attracted to the spot. The accused on seeing them fled away with their respective weapons. Shan succumbed to his injury at the spot.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that on 21-10-2001, Muhammad Saeed the son-in-law of Ahmad All was murdered. In respect of which the case F.I.R. No,559 of 2001 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Was got registered with the said police station. To avenge the same, the accused have murdered the deceased Shan.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that mere Lalkara and ineffective tiring has been attributed to him and no injury, to the deceased or anybody else and in similar situation bail has been allowed to the accused in the case of Muhammad v. The State 1998 SCM R 454 and Muhammad Sadiq and another v. The State 1996 SCM R 1654; and that in the investigation too, it has been found by Muhammad Hussain, Inspector, Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif that he was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence; and that he is behind the bars and is previous non-convict.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he has raised Lalkara and made tiring during commission of crime and had also dragged the deceased inside the Dera of co-accused Ahmad Ali. However, he has conceded that in the investigation by the Inspector Muhammad Hussain, his presence at the spot has not been found and the complainant could not prove so and such finding is there in his case Diary No,13 dated 27-8-2002.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. The fact remains that he has only been ascribed the role of raising Lalkara and ineffective firing and dragging the deceased to the Dera of Ahmad Ali co-accused. He has caused him no injury or to anybody else.
8. Admittedly it has been found in the investigation that he was not present at the spot at the relevant time. This has so been recorded in the case Diary No,13 dated 27-8-2002 by Muhammad Hussain, Inspector of Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif.
9. So there is ample scope of further inquiry as regards the question of his involvement and participation in the occurrence and vicarious liability for the murder of the deceased. So, his case certainly falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In this regard. Reliance is placed upon the case of Muhammad v. The State 1998 SCM R 454 and Muhammad Sadiq and another v. The State 1996 SCM R 1654.
10. He is behind the bars and previous non-convict.
11. In these circumstances, he is entitled to bail. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.