MUHAMMAD IMRAN and others vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises out of an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in case F.I.R. No. 97 of 2008 registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Khushab. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether accused persons assigned only the role of Lalkara and carrying Sotas, without causing direct injuries, are entitled to post-arrest bail when faced with constructive liability. The court held that the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role, were declared guilty during police investigation, and that the question of vicarious liability for murder can be duly considered at the bail stage based on available record. The court established the principle that constructive liability can disentitle an accused from bail even if no direct injury is attributed to them, provided sufficient connecting material exists on record. Consequently, the petition for post-arrest bail was dismissed.
- Whether an accused who did not cause direct injuries can be burdened with constructive liability at the bail stage?
- Can a person assigned only the role of Lalkara be granted post-arrest bail in a murder case involving vicarious liability?
- Is an accused nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role and declared guilty by the police entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- The petitioners, seek post-arrest bail, in a case F.I.R. No,97 of 2008, dated 3-3-2008, offence under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Khushab.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel, that the petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention; that no recovery was effected from the petitioners; that during the investigation police found the petitioners as having armed with Sotas. The only allegation against the petitioners is of Lalkara and the petitioners have not caused any injury to the deceased or to any other person and that co-accused have already been released on bail by the learned trial Court and the case of the petitioners is at par with that of those co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail.
3. Conversely, learned D.P.-G. As well as learned counsel for the complainant has strongly opposed this bail petition contending that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role and the petitioner is involved in an heinous offence, hence not entitled for concession of bail.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role. During the investigation, the police has also declared the petitioners as guilty of the offence. It is entirely erroneous to think that any rule of law to the effect that a person who does not cause injuries to the deceased, cannot be burdened with constructive liability at the time of considering the question of bail. The question is essentially one which has to be determined on the basis of the facts of each case, available on the record at the time when the question of bail comes up for consideration. If on the allegation appearing on the record the conditions set out in the provisions of law spelling out constructive liability are made out, then it cannot be said that the accused concerned is not guilty IA of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Reference can be made to the case of Munawar v. The State 1981 SCM R 1092. Question of vicarious liability for murder can be taken into consideration even at bail stage in the light of material on record. Accused found to be vicariously liable would be disentitled to bail when there was no reason as to why they should be falsely implicated. The petitioners have been arrested in this case on 14-3-2008. There is sufficient material available on the record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. C In this view of the matter, it appears that it is not a fit case for grant of post-arrest bail.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I see. No merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- Naik Nawaz vs The State etc. 2024 PHC 190, 2025 MLD 529
- Naik Nawaz Versus State 2025 MLD 529
- Saad Ullah Khan vs The State etc. 2024 PHC 152
- ARSHAD vs THE STATE 2012 P Cr. L J 1749
- ZULFIQAR vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 973
- KHAN vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 1741