GHULAM MUSTAFA vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 337-A(ii), 337-A(iii), 337-F(iii), and 337-F(v) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, as part of an unlawful assembly, participated in an attack resulting in death and injuries. The petitioner argued that no specific role was attributed to him in the FIR and that the prosecution suppressed injuries sustained by eight members of the accused party, which were documented in medico-legal reports. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to account for the injuries sustained by the accused party and that a private complaint regarding the cross-version was pending. Holding that the determination of vicarious liability required further inquiry, the Court found the petitioner's case fell under the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that the suppression of injuries and the existence of a cross-version warranted further investigation during trial.
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party in a criminal case entitle the accused to the benefit of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can bail be granted when the determination of vicarious liability is dependent on the resolution of conflicting versions of the incident?
- Is a case considered one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a private complaint regarding a cross-version is pending before the trial court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED ZULFIQAR ALI BOKHARI, J.--The petitioner seeks posts arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 337 dated 5- 10-2008 registered under sections 302/ 324/148/149/337-A(ii)/337-A(iii)/337-F(iii) 337-F(v) P.P.C, at Police Station Karor District Layyah.
2. The prosecution case is that on 5-10-2008 at about 1-00 p.m. When the complainant along-with others was present in Chak No,98/TDA the petitioner armed with iron rod along with l2 others came there and assaulted on the complainant party. Qisar fired with his rifle which hit Khalil Ahmad son of the complainant. The fire of Abdul Wahid hit the other son of the complainant namely Jamil Ahmad. Fire of Haji Munir Ahmad hit on the right hand of Abdul Rauf. Muhammad Ashraf fired which hit to Inayat Ali and thereafter all the accused persons attacked with Sotas, hatchets and iron rods and injured the complainant party.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a general role of beating is attributed to the petitioner and no specific role was assigned to him by the complainant in the F.I.R.
It is further contended that eight persons of the accused party received injuries during that occurrence which were concealed by the prosecution. The medico legal reports of those injured persons were presented before the I.O. And the same were never challenged by the complainant party. A cross-version on the statement of Muhammad Boota accused was recorded which was disbelieved by the I.O. And was cancelled, however a private complaint was filed which is pending in which complainant party has been summoned.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant assisted by learned DDPP has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and contended that it was promptly lodged F.I.R. During attack by more than thirteen accused it was very difficult to assign specific role to each and every accused so a general role was assigned to most of the accused persons. Even otherwise petitioner is vicariously liable for murder of Khalil Ahmad, deceased as he was member of unlawful assembly with common object and case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of Kashif who was granted bail by this Court as he was declared innocent by the police.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R, but no specific role has been assigned to him. Eight persons sustained injuries during the occurrence who were medically examined immediately but those injuries were suppressed by the prosecution in the F.I.R. The cross-version put by Muhammad Boota, accused was discharged by the police. It is general phenomena of the police that in the murder cases crossve rsion of the accused party is normally not entertained. The question of vicarious or constructive liability will be determined during the course of trial because this k a case of two stories as private complainant filed by the accused party is also pending in the trial Court.
7. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner has become that of further inquiry falling under section 497(2) Cr.P.C. As such this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.