BASHIR AHMAD and another vs STATE
The petitioners, Bashir Ahmad and Zafar Iqbal, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 278/2004 registered under Sections 324, 337-A, 337-F, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Siray Sidhu, District Khanewal, on charges of launching a murderous attack and causing injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given their nomination in the FIR and their alleged vicarious liability for the injuries inflicted during the occurrence. The court held that the petitioners were nominated in the FIR, were prima facie vicariously liable for the offences including Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and their case fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that accused persons nominated in a murderous assault with active participation and vicarious liability falling within the prohibitory clause are not entitled to post-arrest bail.
- Are accused persons nominated in an FIR for a murderous attack entitled to post-arrest bail when their case falls within the prohibitory clause?
- Does vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether completion of investigation and non-recovery of weapons from an accused are sufficient grounds for bail in a heinous offence?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioners Bashir Ahmad and Zafar Iqbal seek post arrest bail in case. FIR No, 278/2004 dated 12.7.2004 under Sections 324/337-A(i)/337- A(ii)/337-F(iii)/337-F(iv)/337-F(v)/109/148/149 PPC registered at Police Station Siray Sidhu District Khanewal on the complaint of Mian Faiz Munir.
2. Brief facts as per prosecution story narrated in the FIR are the the present petitioners/accused armed with sotas alongwith other co-accused armed with guns and pistols came to the place of occurrence on a Dalla/wagon, made lalkara that they would take revenge of snatching bus stand from them. The allegation against the present petitioners/accused is that they gave injuries to the injured person with their sota alongwith others.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners/accused have not been attributed specific role; petitioners were arrested on 18.9.2004 and since then they are behind the bars; the investigation is complete and the petitioners are no more required by the Investigating Agency and that nothing has been recovered from the petitioners.' He has relied on "Muhammad Haroon alias Haroon Rehman vs. The State" (2004 SCM R 89).
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the accused persons launched murderous attack on the injured persons; the petitioners/accused are nominated in the FIR and they are vicariously liable for the commission of offence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The petitioners are nominated in the FIR and they alongwith 'their co-accused caused injuries on the person of. injured Muhammad Ramzan and Rab Nawaz so, they are vicariously liable for the commission of offence u/S. 324 PPC. Rab Nawaz injured received twelve injuries caused with fire arm while Muhammad Ramzan injured received six injuries with blunt weapons. Case of the present petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. So far as the case law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, each case has its own facts and circumstances. In that case the accused person was not nominated in the FIR and no specific role was attributed to him. Further more, the injuries received by the victim were also of different nature.
6. In the circumstances I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners/accused. Instant bail petition is dismissed.