MUSTAQEEM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Mustaqeem, who was charged under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his alleged involvement in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite a previous bail application having been dismissed as 'not pressed' and despite allegations of firing a weapon at the complainant party. The Court held that the dismissal of a prior bail application as 'not pressed' does not constitute a decision on merits and therefore does not bar a subsequent application. Regarding the merits, the Court noted that the petitioner was attributed only ineffective firing, and his vicarious liability remained a matter for trial. Consequently, the Court found the petitioner's case fell under the scope of further inquiry as per Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a bail application dismissed as 'not pressed' does not preclude a subsequent application on merits, and ineffective firing warrants further inquiry for bail purposes.
- Does the dismissal of a previous bail application as 'not pressed' bar a subsequent bail application on merits?
- Does an allegation of ineffective firing constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the question of vicarious liability in a murder case a matter to be determined at the trial stage rather than at the bail stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Mustaqeem through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,100, dated 4-4-2004 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Ganda Sing Wala, District Kasur.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 4-7-2004 at about 10-00 a.m. Muhammad Saleem armed with .12 bore gun, Mustaqeem with .30 bore pistol, Abdul Kareem empty-handed, Saeed and Muhammad Saif, in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly made by them have committed the Qatle-Amd of the deceased father of the complainant. Muhammad Saleem fired with .12 bore gun hitting the deceased on the front side of his right shoulder.
Mustaqeem fired with .30 bore pistol and the complainant saved himself by lying in the Khal. Abdul Kareem, Saeed and Muhammad Saif had raised Lalkara that Karamat be not spared. They have also extended them threats of life. The deceased had succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
3. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that he has falsely been roped in; that the only role ascribed to him in the F.I.R. Is that he has fired with pistol and the same proved ineffective; the question of his vicarious liability is to be determined at trial; that he is behind the bars for the last about 7 months; and that he is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the State assisted by the complainant's counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that there is a specific allegation against him that he fired with pistol at the complainant party but the complainant saved himself by lying in the Khal; and that he earlier had moved for similar relief but his that application was not pressed and the same was dismissed as such and now there has been shown no fresh ground for bail to him.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the record available perused. It has appeared that the petitioner earlier had moved an application bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,6909/B of 2004. "Mustaqeem v. The State" for similar relief on 15-10-2004, his that application was not pressed and the same A was dismissed as not pressed. It shows that it was never decided on merits. The factum of not pressing his earlier application does not create a bar for considering his request for bail on merits. In this regard, the reference is made to the -case of All Hassan v. The State 2001 SCM R 1047.
6. He has been attributed mere ineffective firing. The question of his vicarious liability, however, is to be seen at trial. His case, thus, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497; Cr.P.C. Requiring further inquiry into his guilt.
7. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last 'about seven months and a previous non-convict. I, therefore, have been persuaded to extend him bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. It is, however, made clear that any observation made above shall not influence the mind of the learned trial Court in any manner.