MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Siddique, who was charged under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 337-A(i)(ii), 337-F(i)(v), and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of his involvement in a cross-firing incident. Upon reviewing the record, the court observed that the F.I.R. did not ascribe any specific injury to the petitioner regarding the deceased or other victims. Furthermore, the court noted that statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 failed to attribute a specific injury to the petitioner. Determining that the issue of the petitioner's vicarious liability required further investigation at the trial stage, the court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does the absence of a specific injury attributed to an accused in an F.I.R. justify the grant of bail?
- When does a case fall under the category of further inquiry for the purpose of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the determination of vicarious liability a matter to be decided at the trial stage rather than the bail stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, 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, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Muhammad Siddique through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,137, dated 25-5-2003 originally registered under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. With P.S. Gaggo, District Vehari. Later on, the police have added sections 337-A(i) (ii)/337-F(i)(v) and 337- L(ii), P.P.C. 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 anyone else has been ascribed to him in the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Sarwar son of Inayat, he has been ascribed Sota blow to injured Mst. 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 F.I.R. That both the parties had fired at each other and during the same deceased Rana Qurban Ali and others A 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 subsection (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 sacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.