Razi Allah Versus The State Razi Allah vs The State
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from a case registered for murder. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considering the nature of the offence and the delay in the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the offense prima facie falls under Qatl-i-Khata due to negligence rather than intentional murder, noting that the petitioner was also injured in the incident and that no prosecution witness had been examined despite numerous adjournments over a significant period. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where a case falls under the prohibitory clause prima facie appears to be one of Qatl-i-Khata by negligence, and there is unexplained delay in the trial without examination of witnesses, the accused is entitled to further inquiry and bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether an offence initially charged as intentional murder can be treated as Qatl-i-Khata for the purpose of bail?
- Does undue delay in the conclusion of a trial without examining prosecution witnesses justify granting bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the petitioner is also injured in the same incident and previous cases resulted in acquittal?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 318, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 319, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF,- It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that bare perusal of the F.I.R. Reveals that it was not a case of intentional murder; that the offence is of Qatl-f-Khata and its sentence is five years' R.l. Alongwith Diyat. Further submits that charge has been framed by Mr. Jaffar Hussain, Additional Sessions Judge, Satyana, on 11.9.2006 but he does not know whether any prosecution witness has been examined so far.
2. The learned counsel for complainant submits that petitioner remained proclaimed offender; that recovery has been effected from him; that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that many other cases were registered against-the petitioner and that Challan has been submitted before the Court.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General submits fftat the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that it is a Case of intentional murder; that the complainant has made supplementary statement in this regard: that charge has been framed under $ection 302 P P C and that tne offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record I had directed my Secretary to get information from the learned Tnai Court whether any witness has been examined and who is at fault in conclusion of the trial. He has received a detailed repoit, according to which, Challan was submitted on 31 8.2006, charge was framed on 11.9.2006 and till today the case'has been adjourned for 38 dates. Although many opportunities have been given but not a single witness has been examined so far, with a view .Of detain the petitioner behind the bar coupled with the fact that the instant case was lodged by real brother of the deceased who is first cousin of. The'petitioner. It was not an intentional murder but Qatl-i- Khata or any negligence on the part of the petitioner: who is also injured in this case and remained in hospital for a long pe'riod.
As far'as earlier cases are.Concerned, those are of the minor offences including illicit arms.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, who stated at bar, that in all those cases the petitioner has been acquitted. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the definition of Section 318 P P C At this stage I would like to lepioduoe section 319. P.P.C. Hereunder:- SECTION 319. P.P C Punishment for Qatl-i-Khata - VVhoevei commits ^ Qatl-i-Khata shall be liable to diyat Provided that, where Qatl-i'-.Kh'a!:i , -committed by any rash or negligent act. Other than rash or negligent driving, the offender may, in addition to diyat. Also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years as ta zir Perusal of the above-said section shows that maximum sentence for Qatl-i-Khata is five ' years imprisonment alongwith Diyat. In fact it was negligence on the part of the petitioner, who himself sustained injuries. The case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C In these circumstances, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees Fifty Thousand, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
Bail after arrest granted.