ASLAM KHAN Versus STATE

The petitioners who are involved in a case. under sections 302/324/ 337-F(4)/337-F(i)/148 and 149, P.P.C. arising out of F.I.R. No.67/93, dated 13-9-1993, registered at Police Station Kot Naina, District Narowal, seek to be admitted to bail.

2. Briefly the allegations against the petitioners as per F.I.R. are that they while armed with deadly weapons alongwith their co-accused attacked the complainant party, as a result of which Sultan lost his life and Azam Khan and Irfan Khan received injuries.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegations against Aslam Khan petitioner No.l is that he fired ineffectively on the deceased and the eye-witnesses and no overt act has been attributed to him, so the case against him is one of further inquiry and he is entitled to bail. With respect to Mahmood Khan petitioner No.2, the learned counsel contended that he only caused injury to Irfan P:W. with fire-arm which is simple in nature, hence his case is distinguishable from the case of the principal accused as it would be determined after the recording of some evidence whether he had common object with the principal accused or not. With respect to Gulrez Khan petitioner No.3, the learned counsel contended that he is a boy of tender age as is apparent from his school leaving certificate, though he caused injuries to injured P.W. and not to the deceased, hence his case is one of further inquiry as it would be determined after the recording of some evidence whether actually he shared common object with the principle accused or not.

4. The learned counsel for the State and the complainant have opposed this bail application on the ground that the occurrence took place in the broad daylight and the petitioners are nominated accused and specific role has been attributed to them. The learned State counsel submitted that the guns recovered at the instance of the petitioners were found matched with the crime empties recovered from the place of occurrence, hence there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners are involved in a case which falls within the prohibitory clause in view of the application of principle of vicarious criminal liability.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as report of Forensic Science Laboratory.

6. The petitioners are nominated accused and they have caused injuries with fire-arms, hence prima facie they shared common object with the principal accused, so they are not entitled to the grant of bail. Even otherwise, the case is fixed for evidence on 21-6-1994 and the rest of the evidence is likely to be recorded on that date, no case for bail is made out, hence this application is dismissed.

N.H.Q./A-653/L Bail refused.