MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Siddique, in connection with FIR No. 137, registered for offences including murder and attempted murder. The core legal question addressed by the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence available at the pre-trial stage. Upon reviewing the FIR and the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court observed that no specific injury was attributed to the petitioner regarding the deceased or the injured witnesses. The Court noted that the incident involved a mutual exchange of fire between the parties, resulting in injuries to individuals on both sides. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's vicarious liability remained a matter for determination at trial, thereby bringing his case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court accordingly granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does the absence of a specific injury attributed to an accused in an FIR justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Is the determination of vicarious liability a matter to be decided at the trial stage rather than at the bail stage?
- When does a case fall under the category of further inquiry for the purpose of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner Muhammad Siddique through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in Case FIR- No, 137 dated 25.5.2003 originally registered u/S. 302/324/148/1/19 PPC with P.S. Gaggo District Vehari. Later on, the police have added Section 337-A(i)(ii)/337-F(i)(v) and 337-L(ii) PPC in the same.
2. Here I would like to mention that the bail petitions of his co-accused Muhammad Amin, Nazir Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad and Ghulam Ghous were dealt with by my learned brother Muhammad Akram Baitu, J. on 3.3.2004. He is not available at this Bench these days. I, therefore, proceed to decide the instant petition.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that no specific injury either to the deceased or any one else has been ascribed to him in the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that in the statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C.
Muhammad Sarwar s/o Inayat, he has been ascribed Sota blow to injured Mg. Rasoolan Bibi. I have gone through his statement. In the same too no specific injury even to the said lady has been ascribed to him.
5. It is evident from the FIR that both the parties had fired at each other and during the same deceased Rana Qurban Ali and others from both the sides .have sustained injuries.
6. The question of his vicarious liability is to be gone into at trial. His case, therefore, is one of further inquiry into his guilt and so the same is covered under sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
7. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.