INAM-UL-HAQ vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 148, 149, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an FIR involving murder and assault. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where general allegations of beating with sticks were made without attributing specific fatal injuries or recovering any weapon, and co-accused had been declared innocent. The Lahore High Court held that the case of the petitioner called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as no specific overt act or firearm injury was attributed to him and his vicarious liability was yet to be determined at trial. The court laid down the principle that general allegations of causing injuries with blunt weapons, unaccompanied by specific overt acts or weapon recovery, particularly when fatal injuries are attributed to other co-accused, make out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused with only general allegations of assault and no weapon recovery is entitled to post-arrest bail when fatal injuries are attributed to co-accused?
- Does the omission of unlawful assembly sections and addition of common intention during investigation present a case for further inquiry under criminal procedure?
- Can bail be granted when the determination of vicarious liability is deferred to the trial court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.64 of 2002 registered under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. At Police Station Madarsa, District Bahawalnagar. Later on section 34, P.P.C. Was added.
2. According to the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused, nominated in the F.I.R., caused injuries to Shamsul Haq, as result of which, he died while he was being taken to the hospital.
3. Post-arrest bail of the petitioner was declined by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar vide his order dated 7-11-2002.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that out of nominated accused persons, four persons namely Muhammad Akhtar, Muhammad Mohsin, Muhammad Abdullab and Hafeezulalh have been declared innocent. No specific injury, caused to the deceased, has been attributed to the petitioner no any weapon of offence has been recovered from his possession. Further contended that according to the MLR, cause of death is fire-arm injury. Further contended that the Investigating Officer opined that the petitioner was empty-handed at the time and place of occurrence.
5. Grant of bail to the petitioner has been opposed vehemently by the learned counsel for the complainant and State contending that the place of occurrence is very near from the residence of the petitioner and he was identified by the prosecution witnesses and police and challaned him along with his two brothers. Ihtashamul Haq and Mursaleen alias Shafiq who were armed with repeater and gun. They. Further contended that offence is punishable under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the .Petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7.#TS##According to the F.I.R., there is general allegation against the petitioner that he along with Muhammad Akhtar, Muhammad .Abdullah and Muhammad Mohsin gave beating with sticks and iron bar: In the F.I.R. Specific injuries have been, attributed to Muhammad 'Abdullah, Muhammad Akhtar, Muhanunad Mohsin but no specific overt act/injury has been attributed to the petitioner. No weapon of offence was recovered from his possession. The Investigating Officer has opined, that the petitioner was empty-handed present at the place of occurrence. Vicarious liability of the petitioner is yet to be determined by the trial Court. After declaring four accused persons Muhammad Akhtar, Muhammad Abdullah Muhammad Moshin and Hafeezullah as innocent the police has omitted offence under sections 148, 149, P.P.C. And while submitting the challan added section 34, P.P.C.
8.From the above facts the case of the petitioner is open for further inquiry. In case of Mehmood Akhtar and another v. Haji Nazir Ahmad and .4 others (1995 SCM R 310), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed bail to a person who was alleged to have caught hold of the deceased before he was given injuries by his. Co-accused. The general allegation of causing injury with sticks against the petitioner is riot sufficient to establish his guilt at bail stage. Cause of death of the deceased is fire- arm injury which were attributed to Ihtashamul Haq and Mursaleen alias Shafiq co-accused.
9. For the foregoing reasons and following the dictum laid down in the above-referred case and also in cases of Muhammad Saffar v. The State (2001 YLR 656 Karachi); Allah Dino v. The State <2001 YLR 1073/ Karachi) and Ghulam Nabi and another (2001 YLR 1309 (2) Karachi), this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One hundred thousand rupees) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.