ALLAH DITTA and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by Allah Ditta and others in relation to case F.I.R. No. 110 dated 12-5-2006 registered under sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 337-A(i), 337-H(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sahoka, District Vehari. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the petitioners to pre-arrest bail where the primary non-bailable injury is attributed to a co-accused whose bail application was withdrawn, and the vicarious liability of the remaining petitioners requires further evidence. The Lahore High Court held that since the specific non-bailable injury was attributed to the co-accused and the other invoked offenses were bailable, with vicarious liability subject to trial adjudication, the petitioners established a case for pre-arrest bail. The court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioners subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail when the primary non-bailable injury is attributed to a co-accused who withdrew his application?
- Is the question of vicarious liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 subject to further determination after recording evidence at trial for the purpose of bail?
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed when the remaining offenses alleged against the accused are bailable in nature?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner opts not to press this petition to the extent of Allah Ditta on of Manzoor. Accordingly this petition to the extent of Allah Ditta petitioner No,1 is dismissed as not pressed.
2. Allah Ditta, Zahoor Ahmad, both sons of Sadhna and Manzoor Ahmad son of Hassan seek confirmation of their pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,110, dated 12-5-2006 under sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 337A(i), 337-H(ii), 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station Sahoka District Vehari, on the ground that except offdnce under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. All the remaining offences are bailable where injury constituting offence under section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. Per medical report is attributed to Allah Ditta son of Manzoor whose bail application has been withdrawn. It is further contended that vicarious liability of the petitioner with regard to injury implicating section 337A(ii), P.P.C. Is yet to be determined after recording of evidence, hence petitioners are entitled to confirmation of their ad interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted by this Court.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as. State have opposed this application by contending that although injury constituting offence under section 337A(ii), P.P.C. Is attributed to Allah Ditta son of Manzoor whose bail application has been withdrawn yet the present petitioners launched attack on the complainant and his mother Mst. Nooran in furtherance of their common intention, hence their liability is the same as that of Allah Ditta son of Manzoor.
4. Arguments considered. Record perused.
5. Admittedly the injury constituting offence under section 337A(ii), P.P.C. Which is punishable with five years' imprisonment is attributed to Allah Ditta son of Manzoor whose bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn, whereas other offences attributed to the remaining petitioners are bailable and the question of A their vicarious liability is yet to be determined after recording of evidence, hence prima facie petitioners Allah Ditta, Zahoor Ahmad sons of Sadhna and Manzoor son of Hassan are entitled to confirmation of their pre-arrest bail. This application is therefore, allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail earlier granted to petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 by this Court on 26-7-2006 is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court within ten days.
Cited by 1 case
- RAJO KHAN and 3 others vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 452