SAIF ULLAH vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from an F.I.R. registered under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that he was empty-handed during the alleged occurrence, having only raised a 'Lalkara' without causing any injury. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the complainant party was the initial aggressor, and the petitioner himself sustained injuries during the incident, which were suppressed in the F.I.R. The court observed that the petitioner's direct involvement in the motive was unclear and that the existence of a cross-version incident, coupled with the suppression of the petitioner's injuries, created reasonable grounds to doubt his culpability. The court held that the question of the petitioner's vicarious liability and the sharing of common intention required further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted bail, ruling that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the petitioner's guilt was not prima facie established.
- Does the mere raising of a Lalkara by an empty-handed accused, in the presence of a cross-version incident, constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should bail be granted when the F.I.R. suppresses injuries sustained by the accused during the same occurrence?
- Is the question of vicarious liability and common intention a matter requiring further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Saif Ullah petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,155 registered at Police Station Vanike Tarar, District Hafiz Abad on 24-4-2005 in respect of offences under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been noticed by me that admittedly the petitioner was empty-handed during the alleged occurrence and he had not caused any injury to any person during the same. According to the F.I.R. The petitioner had raised only a Lalkara and had done nothing more. A perusal of the F.I.R.
Shows that the complainant party itself had approached the place of occurrence. During the investigation a cross-version of the same incident had been advanced by the accused party of this case and according to the said version it was the complainant party which had aggressed against the accused party and had caused injuries to two persons belonging to the petitioner's party, including the petitioner himself. In the F.I.R. The injuries sustained by the petitioner during the same occurrence had been completely suppressed. Apparently the petitioner was not directly connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. In these circumstances the question regarding sharing of common intention by the petitioner with his co-accused as also the question regarding his vicarious liability for the offence allegedly committed by his co-accused are questions which surely require further inquiry at this stage within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
The petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.