MUHAMMAD SARWAR and another vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Iqbal seeking after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 145 of 2003 registered under sections 302, 324, 120-A, 120-B, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Bara Ghar, Sheikhupura. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail when they were not named in the initial F.I.R., were implicated via a supplementary statement, allegedly caused no physical injuries to the deceased or the injured prosecution witness, and possess no prior criminal record, leaving their vicarious liability to be determined by the trial court. The court held that since the petitioners did not cause any injuries and their vicarious liability for murder requires further inquiry by the trial court alongside contradictions in the complainant's statements, the petitioners made a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the court admitted both petitioners to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds, laying down the principle that accused persons not attributed specific injuries and whose vicarious liability is open to question may be granted bail pending trial.
- Are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail when they are not named in the initial F.I.R. and are implicated only through a subsequent supplementary statement?
- Does the lack of any attributed injury to the deceased or injured witness by the accused justify granting post-arrest bail for further inquiry?
- Whether contradictions between the complainant's F.I.R. and a subsequently filed complaint warrant the concession of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 120-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 120-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.--- This order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No,2947/B of 2004 (Muhammad Sarwar v. State) and Criminal Miscellaneous No,3027 /B of 2004 (Muhammad Iqbal v.
2. State) as both are outcome of the same F.I.R.
3. ' Muhammad Sarwar son of Shaman and Muhammad Iqbal alias Bali son of Maqsood Ahmad seek after-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,145 of 2003 dated 8-6-2003 under sections 302/324/120- A,B/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Bara Ghar, Sheikhupura, at the instance of Muhammad Aslam for murder of Jaffar Hussain alias Goga and causing injuries to Tariq Mehmood P.W.
4. ' The petitioners were arrested on 11-7-2003 and after completion of investigation have been sent in judicial lock-up. They were declined after arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura vide orders dated 16-9-2003 and 2-4-2004 respectively. Hence these petitions.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners and for the State have been heard exhaustively and record has been perused.
6. Admittedly, the petitioners were not named in the F.I.R. However, they were implicated on the basis of supplementary statement got recorded by the police. During investigation it has been found that the petitioners had not caused any injury either to the deceased or to the injured P.W. However, it was found that they accompanied their co-accused Shaukat to the Village of Jaffar Hussain alias Goga in order to commit theft where the instant occurrence took place. Whether the petitioners are vicariously liable for murder of Goga or not is to be seen by the trial Court. There is contradictory stand of the complainant in the F.I.R. And complaint filed by him subsequently. The petitioners are not involved in any criminal case previously. The offence they are involved in is to be seen by the trial Court, therefore, the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.