MUHAMMAD SHAHID vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed by Muhammad Shahid seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 811 registered under sections 302/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, to whom only ineffective firing was attributed without any firearm recovery or direct motive, is entitled to post-arrest bail pending further inquiry into his vicarious liability and sharing of a common object. The court held that since no injury was caused by the petitioner, no firearm was recovered from him, and his physical custody was no longer required for investigation after the submission of the challan, his case falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court established the principle that where an accused is alleged to have only engaged in ineffective firing with no weapon recovery or direct motive, the question of vicarious liability and sharing of a common object warrants further probe, making the case a fit one for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are made out when an accused is only attributed ineffective firing without any firearm recovery?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the question of sharing a common object and vicarious liability requires further probe?
- Does the completion of investigation and submission of challan render the physical custody of an accused unnecessary for the purpose of granting bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Muhammad Shahid petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,811 registered at Police Station Shadbagh, Lahore on 22-11-2005 in respect of offences under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. And section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by us that admittedly the petitioner had not caused any injury to any person during the alleged occurrence and the only role attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R. Is that of indulging in ineffective firing. It is not disputed that no fire-arm has been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case. 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 object by the petitioner with his co-accused as also the question regarding his vicarious liability for the offences allegedly committed by his co-accused are questions which require further probe at this stage. After completion of the investigation a challan has already been submitted and, thus, physical custody of the petitioner is not required at this stage for the purposes of investigation.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This 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 two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- GULSHER vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 1206