LIAQUAT and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused in a criminal 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 specific allegations of their involvement in a free fight and the nature of the injuries attributed to them. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, determining that their case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry.' The Court reasoned that one petitioner was empty-handed, the other was armed only with a danda and attributed a bailable injury, and the incident appeared to be a free fight where the aggressor was not clearly identifiable. Consequently, the Court found that the invocation of sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 was not prima facie established against them. The key principle laid down is that in cases of a free fight where the aggressor is unknown and the specific roles of the accused do not support the invocation of serious non-bailable offences, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the presence of a free fight where the aggressor is unknown entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be denied bail on the basis of vicarious liability under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the injuries attributed are minor and the intent to murder is not prima facie established?
- Is a case considered one of 'further inquiry' when the specific roles assigned to the accused do not support the serious charges leveled in the F.I.R.?
- 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, 337-L(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 petitioners 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 D.P.G. 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 counse for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.G, 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 beer assigned to him and no recovery has beer 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 bailable in nature. As far as argument for the learned D.P.G. Regarding petitioners being vicariously liable and sharing common intention is concerned, I am afraid they are not liable to be tried uncle sections 324 and 302, P.P.C. Because had there been any 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' case 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 the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate. Petition stands disposed of.