' Muhammad Hanif, Wahid Bakhsh and Sabir Hussain petitioners through the instant petition have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,208, dated 14-7-2002, initially registered under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. With Police Station Dajal, Tehsil Jampur, District Rajanpur. Later on the police have added section 302, P.P.C. In the same.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 14-7-2002 at about 8-30 a.m. Kamal empty- handed, Haji Rashid armed with Sota, Saeed with .12 bore gun, Sabir Hussain with pistol, Rafique with hatchet, Abid with Sota and Wahid Bakhsh with Sota alongwith 10/12 other unknown persons in prosecution of the common objection of the unlawful assembly formed by them had launched murderous attack upon the complainant party. Saeed Ahmad with his gun fired in the air. Haji Rashid Ahmad inflicted Sota blow to Mirza hitting him on his nose and the other on his left wrist.
Muhammad Rafique inflicted him hatchet blow hitting on his head. Abid Hussain inflicted Sota blow hitting Ghulam Qasim on his head. Saeed Ahmad thereafter inflicted him three blows with Kunda of the gun hitting on his abdomen, back and left leg. Sabir Hussain caught hold of the complainant.
Wahid Bakhsh and Muhammad Hanif gave him Sota blows hitting on his head, Muth of right hand and finger of the left hand. On hue and cry raised Muhammad Din and Darzi were attracted to the spot. Sabir Hussain fired in the air with pistol and thereafter they all went to their houses with their respective weapons.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that on 13-7-2002 Muhammad Hanif etc. Had said to them that as to why they had not irrigated the cotton crop. There had taken place the exchange of hot words between them over the same. On account of the grudge over the same they have committed the above act. Mirza Khan/ injured had succumbed to his injuries subsequently.
4. It has been contended on their behalf that Muhammad Hanif and Wahid Baldish petitioners had caused injuries only to the complainant and no injury to the deceased while Sabir Hussain allegedly had caught hold of him (complainant) and had fired in the air; that no overt act qua the deceased is ascribed to him also; that question of their vicarious liability for the murder of the deceased is to be gone into at the time of trial and in this regard reliance has been placed upon the case of Mehmood Akhtar and another v. Haji Nazir Ahmad and 4 others 1995 SCM R 310, Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCM R 1125, Atta Ullah and 3 others v. The State and another 1999 SCM R 1320, Muhammad Sadiq and another v. The State 1996 SCM R 1654 and Ghulam Nabi and another v. The State 2001 YLR 1309(2) (Karachi); and that they are behind the bars and previous non-convicts.
5. Conversely, the learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that they while armed with deadly weapons alongwith their co-accused in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly launched murderous assault upon the complainant party and had injured their three persons out of whom one died subsequently; that Muhammad Hanif and Wahid Bakhsh have been assigned injuries to the complainant while Sabir Hussain petitioner had caught hold of him (complainant) and also fired in the air and so they had facilitated their co-accused in the murder of the deceased and causing injuries to the complainant and his brother Ghulam Qasim and so they are vicariously liable for the murder of the deceased and that offence is covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced from both the sides with the help of available record.
7. As regards petitioner Muhammad Hanif and Wahid Bakhsh, they with Sotas allegedly had caused injuries to the complainant Muhammad Ramzan on his head, Muth of the right hand and finger of the left hand. They have been assigned no injury to the deceased. As regards Sabir Hussain petitioner, he allegedly had caught hold of the complainant while Wahid Bakhsh and Muhammad Hanif had inflicted him Sota blows and he also fired in the air with his gun. He too had not been ascribed any overt act qua the deceased. Thus, the question of their vicariously liable, therefore, is to he gone into at the time of trial. In this regard reference is made to the case of Mehmood Akhtar and another v. Haji Nazir Ahmad and 4 others 1995 SCM R 310. Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCM R 1125. Atta Ullah and 3 others v. The State and another 1999 SCM R 1320, Muhammad Sadiq and another v. The State 1996 SCM R 1654 and Ghulam Nabi and another v. The State 2011 YLR 1309(2) (Karachi). They are behind the bars and stated to he previous non-convicts. In these.
Circumstances, I find that the case for their enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and they are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.