1. ' Learned counsel says that the allegations against the applicants/accused per the F.I.R. Only show their presence at the scene of the crime along with main accused Meero, who is stated to have fired the fatal shot at the deceased. Per learned counsel the question of vicarious liability and common intention in the circumstances of the case would require further inquiry as no overt act has been attributed to applicants/ accused. He, therefore, prays that bail may be granted to them.
2. ' This prayer has not been opposed by learned State counsel. I have heard both the learned counsel.
3. ' Admittedly, the applicants/accused viz. Haji Haider and Mahmood are only alleged to be present in the Datsun pickup in which the main accused Meero was also present and thereafter accused Meero is stated to have killed the deceased Deedar Ali-by firing with his mouser. Hence the question of vicarious liability and common intention as far as the applicants/accused are concerned, in my opinion, would require further inquiry in the circumstances of the case.
4. ' Accordingly, I would grant bail to applicants/accused Haji Haider and Mahmood subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees Two lacs) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. 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.