SHAMAN and anothers vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 334, 336, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an FIR involving firearm injuries resulting in severe harm and loss of eyesight. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given their nominal presence, specific naming in the FIR, invocation of vicarious liability through an unlawful assembly, and the case falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners were specifically named, attributed active roles, remained proclaimed offenders after fleeing, and were prima facie vicariously liable for offences falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, with the trial expected to conclude shortly. The key principle laid down is that bail is rightly refused to accused persons facing serious charges falling within the prohibitory clause where vicarious liability is established and they have previously absconded as proclaimed offenders.
- Whether an accused named in a promptly lodged FIR for an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the principle of vicarious liability under section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 bar the grant of bail when specific roles are attributed in a crime?
- What is the effect of an accused remaining a proclaimed offender on their subsequent application for post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, J.--- Through the instant petition, the petitioners have sought post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,1209 dated 24-11-2006 registered under sections 302/324/334/336/ 148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station, Khurrianwa/a, District Faisalabad.
2. Allegations against the petitioners and another are that they fired at Muzammal causing one injury on his abdomen. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case was registered against the persons amongst whom Shahzad, Sajid and Mubarik have been assigned specific injuries on the person of Ramsha, Iram Shahzadi and Kashfa P.W. He submits that during the entire investigation the prosecution has not been able to point out the person who was responsible of causing the only injuries on the abdomen of Muzammal P.W.; that the petitioners have made out a case falling within the area of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He also argued that the question of vicarious liability is to be probed by the learned trial Court at the time of trial. He prayed for grant of post-arrest bail stating that the petitioners were arrested in this case on 27-1-2008, since when they are behind the bars.
3. Conversely the learned D.P.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that it is a case of promptly lodged F.I.R.; that the alleged incident took place at 8-30 p.m. And was in the books of police station at 9-55 p.m. Despite the fact that the distance between the place of occurrence and police station was 6 miles. He also states that the petitioners were specifically named in the F.I.R.
They formed unlawful assembly and thereafter fired at Muzammal P.W. Causing injury on vital part of his body; that from the available material vicarious liability of the petitioners is established; that in view of provisions of section 149, P.P.C. They are vicariously liable for the act of their co-accused.
He submits that as a result of fire shot by Sajid co-accused, Iram Shahzadi lost her eyesight and was, thus, made incapable. He states that as per report of doctor she has become permanently blind. He also submits that after their arrest the petitioner led to the recovery of .12 bore guns. He also submits that the case of the petitioners falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
That the learned trial Court has taken the cognizance of the case and at present charge is likely to frame shortly.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it has been noticed that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. A specific role has been attributed to them. After the occurrence the petitioners fled away and remained proclaimed offender in this case. The challan against them has already been submitted in the Court and the trial is likely to conclude shortly. The offence with which they are involved carries penalty of death/life imprisonment/10 years' R.I. Which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioners are vicariously liable for the act of their co-accused. No case for grant of bail is made out.
5. Resultantly this petition having no substance is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- SHABBIR AHMAD and another vs THE STATE and another 2010 MLD 185