MUHAMMAD NAZIR and others vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises out of a post-arrest bail application filed on behalf of Muhammad Nazir in relation to a criminal case registered under Sections 337-A(iii)/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Jauharabad, District Khushab. The core legal question involved was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where he was named in the FIR but no specific injury or weapon was attributed to him, leaving his vicarious liability open to further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that since no injury was ascribed to the petitioner and he was stated to be empty-handed, his case fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, warranting further inquiry into his guilt. The court laid down the principle that an accused person named in the FIR without any specific overt act or weapon attribution, whose vicarious liability is subject to adjudication at trial, makes out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C., justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is named in the FIR but no specific injury or weapon is attributed to him?
- Does the question of vicarious liability bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when he is a previous non-convict and has spent a considerable period behind bars?
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he dose not press this petition to the extent of petitioner No.2 (Rafeel-ul-Zaman alias Rafi-uz-Zaman) provided direction is issued to the learned trial Court for expeditious disposal of the case against him as he is behind the bars for the last about 1-1/2 year.
2. In view of his statement, the instant petition is dismissed as not pressed to the extent of petitioner No.2 Rafeel uz Zaman alias Rafi uz Zaman.
3. Muhammad Nazir (petitioner No.1) through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No. 93, dated 7-3-2002 registered under sections 337-A(iii)/109/34, P.P.C. With Police Station, Jauharabad District Khushab.
4. Briefly, the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 28-2-2002 at about 8-00 a.m. Muhammad Nazir (petitioner No.2 and others) in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly formed by them have caused injuries to Mst. Mumtaz Begum the sister of the complainant Mst.
Sahib Bibi. Rafeel-uz-Zaman has inflicted her blow with blunt side of the hatchet hitting on her head. The same resulted into the fracture of her skull bone.
5. It has been contended on his behalf that be has falsely been roped in on account of family dispute; that no injury qua Mst. Mumtaz Bibi injured has been ascribed to him; that he according to the narration of the facts in the F.I.R. Was empty handed at the time of the alleged incident; that the question of his vicarious liability is to be gone into at the time of trial; that nothing incriminating has been recovered from him; and that he is behind the bars for the last about 9 months and is previous non-convict.
6. Conversely, the learned State counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R. And that he along with his co-accused has formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of the- same trespassed into the complainant's house and caused injury to her sister Mst. Mumtaz Begum.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
8. Though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. But admittedly, no injury to anyone has been ascribed to him in the commission of crime alleged. The F.I.R. Also does not show that he was armed with any weapon at the relevant time. The injury on the head of Mst. Mumtaz Begum, injured with blunt side of the hatchet is- ascribed to his co-accused Rafeel-uz-Zaman alias Rafi-uz-Zaman. Anyway, the question of his vicarious liability is to be gone into at the time of trial. His case, therefore, certainly is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into his guilt.
9. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about 9 months and previous non-convict. In these circumstances, I find that the case for his (petitioner No.1) enlargement on bail has been made out.
Resultantly, this petition is allowed and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousands) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
10. The learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the case against them as expeditiously as possible.