GHULAM YASIN vs THE STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from F.I.R. No. 133 dated 12-3-2006. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that specific firearm injuries causing death were attributed to a co-accused while the petitioner was attributed a blunt weapon injury not declared contributory to death. The Lahore High Court held that the possibility of the petitioner's false involvement, being the real brother of the principal accused, required further probe regarding vicarious liability and common intention, and noted the delay in the trial where no witness had been examined despite the petitioner being incarcerated for over two years. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where blunt weapon injuries attributed to an accused are not declared contributory to death and trial delay exists, further inquiry into common intention warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the injury attributed to the accused is not declared contributory to the cause of death?
- Does the lack of progress in the trial and prolonged incarceration justify the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Whether the question of sharing a common intention requires further probe entitling the accused to bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MAZHAR HUSSAIN MINHAS, J.--- Petitioner is seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,133 dated 12-3- 2006 under sections 302/34, P.P.C. Police Station Rohillanwali District Muzaffargarh.
2. Allegation against the petitioner is that on 12-3-2006 at about 11-30 a.m. He armed with Saryia along with his co-accused armed with .30 bore pistol attacked Abdul Latif brother of Muhammad Siddique complainant and committed his Qatl-i-amd near the house of Hafiz Rabnawaz cawing injuries with their respective weapons. Petitioner inflicted Saryia blows to Abdul Latif on different parts of his body while co-accused. Ahmed Din fired the pistol shots hitting on his chest, left arm and flank. Motive for the occurrence is that Abdul Latif deceased forbade the accused from removing earth from his land.
3. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned D.P.-G for the State have been heard and record perused.
4. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. And is attributed Saryia blows to Abdul Latif deceased on his left arm and other parts of the body, but no blunt weapon injury has been found on the person of deceased except a lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. On right foot near the heel. All the, remaining injuries are fire-arm injuries which are attributed to co-accused Ahmad Din. Doctor has opined in the post mortem report that the death occurred due to the firearm injuries and the blunt weapon injury has not been declared contributory to the death. In these circumstances, possibility of false involvement of petitioner being real brother of principal accused cannot be ruled out and the question of his sharing common intention or -vicarious liability for commission of the offence requires further. Probe. The petitioner is behind the bars for more than two years but so far not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. Hence the application is allowed and he is ordered to be released on bail in the sum of Rs,100,000 (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.