Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/148/149/427---Qatl-e-amd---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---No effective and specific role had been attributed to accused, persons, involvement of whom would be considered at the time of trial---Sole injury had been attributed to co-accused who was absconding---No material was on record against accused, persons, except the allegations made in the F.I.R.--Question of common intention of accused party would be determined at the time of trial---Case of accused appeared to be as that of further inquiry and he was entitled to the concession of bail under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Accused was released on bail, in circumstances. Umar Hayat v. The State 2009 PCr.LJ 1058 ref Khawaja Muhammad Khan for Petitioner. Sahibzada Asadullah for Complainant. Bilal ud Din for the State. Date of hearing: 6th November, 2009. JUDGMENT MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The deceased, then injured, reported the matter to the police in RHC Wari that had laid pipe for his house when at 17-30 hours, the present accused along with four others armed with fire-arms came there, directed him to remove the said pipe and at the same time started firing at him and he was injured on his right arm with firing of Muhammad Zaman co-accused. The occurrence was also witnessed by Mubarak Zeb, Maana Dar and Suleman. The complainant then succumbed to the injuries at 00-15 hours on 1-9-2009. The accused petitioner was arrested on 19-9-2009. He applied for concession of bail which was refused by the lower forums, so the present application. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner submitted that no specific role has been attributed to the present accused petitioner and he has only been charged for ineffective firing. The site plan reflects that the alleged occurrence took place within the village and the house of the complainant was surroun ded by different houses and the occurrence as reflected through the site plan makes it impossible for all the accused to fire at the complainant. He further submitted that the accused is a, teacher in the Government school and he had gone to collect the salaries…