LIAQAT alias SAAIN and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two accused persons, Liaquat and Akhtar, in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the allegations of their participation in a violent occurrence involving a free fight and cross-versions. The court observed that one petitioner was present empty-handed, while the other was armed only with a 'danda' and attributed a simple injury classified as a bailable offence. Furthermore, the court found that the applicability of sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was questionable regarding common intention, as no grievous injuries were inflicted. Holding that the case constituted one of further inquiry into guilt, the court granted bail to both petitioners. The key principle laid down is that where a free fight occurs and the identity of the aggressor is uncertain, and where the specific roles attributed do not prima facie support the application of major penal sections, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does the absence of grievous injuries in a case involving a free fight justify the exclusion of non-bailable offences like Section 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the purpose of bail?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry when it is unclear which party initiated the attack in a free fight?
- Can bail be granted to an accused person who was present at the scene of the crime but was empty-handed and assigned no specific role?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.--- The petitioners seek post arrest bail in case F.I.R No,206/2008 dated 3-3-2008 registered under sections 302, 324, 337L(2)148, 149, P.P.C. At Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioners as per narration of F.I.R are that they along with their accomplices had launched an attack on the complainant party and had caused injuries to them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioners had not actively participated in the occurrence as one of the petitioners namely Akhtar was present empty handed at the place of occurrence and Liaquat, petitioner No,1 was simply armed with Danda but had not caused any 'injury to the complainant. He further submits that one simple injury is attributed to Akhtar which has been declared as 337-L(ii), which is a bailable offence. He further submits that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. He further argues that it was a free fight in which it was' not really known as to which one was the aggressor party, therefore, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt, as cross version of the petitioner had already been recorded subsequent to the registration of instant F.I.R.
4. Learned DPG opposes bail application of the petitioners and submits that both the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R with specific role and they are vicariously liable to cause injury to the complainant as they had shared common intention and both of them have been held guilty in police investigation as well.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned DPG and have also perused the record. The petitioners are no doubt nominated in the F.I.R with specific role but Akhtar, petitioner No,2, was empty handed at the place of occurrence and no role has been assigned to him and no recovery has been effected from him as well. As far as Liaquat, petitioner No,1, is concerned he was simply armed with Danda and simple injury has been attributed to him which has been declared as 337-L(ii) which is a bailable in nature. As far as argument of the learned DPG regarding petitioners being vicariously liable and sharing common intention is concerned, I am afraid they are not liable to be tried under sections 324 and 302' P.P.C. Because had there been any A intention of committing murder of the deceased, they could have also caused grievous injuries as well, therefore, to their extent they are not liable to be tried under section 302 or 324 P.P.C. As one of the petitioners was present empty handed at the place of occurrence. Above all free fight took place between the parties and it was not really known as to which one was the aggressor party and it is to be seen at the time of trial of the case on the basis of evidence as to which party had launched attack first.
6. Under the circumstances, petitioners' ease is that of further inquiry into their guilt. I, therefore, admit both the petitioners to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand), each with two sureties in the like amount each to A the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
Petition stands disposed of.