GUL BADSHAH vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 147, 149, 34, and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Hazroo, District Attock. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was armed with a club but not attributed any specific injury to the deceased, is entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial where common intention and vicarious liability are subject to further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that since no specific injury was attributed to the petitioner, the question of vicarious liability requires deeper evaluation during trial, the investigation is complete with the submission of the challan, and continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not attributed any fatal or specific injury and the applicability of vicarious liability requires assessment of evidence, further inquiry is made out under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, making the accused a fit case for bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused who is not attributed any specific injury on the person of the deceased?
- Can the question of vicarious liability under common intention be conclusively determined at the bail stage?
- Does the submission of challan and completion of investigation make an accused a fit case for further inquiry under bail provisions?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
This is an application for grant of post-arrest bail in case FIR No,20, dated 10.01.2010, registered under Sections 324, 147, 149/34 and 302 PPC, at Police Station Hazroo, District Attock.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on the day of occurrence the complainant along with his father and uncle was present at home. The petitioner armed with club, along with four co- accused armed with clubs and hatchets came there and the called the complainant and others.
The moment, the complainant, his uncle and father came out of the house, the said accused attacked them with their respective weapons. In result of the injuries received by father of the complainant, he died in the hospital on the next day of the occurrence.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in the instant case due to mala fide and ulterior motive of the complainant. It is further contended that the petitioner has not been attributed any of the injuries caused on the person of father of the complainant/deceased. Adds that the petitioner has been behind the bars for the last about four months. his person is no more required for the investigation purpose. The challan of the case has already been submitted before the learned trial Court and lastly prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.
3. The learned Law Officer opts to remain absent from the proceedings, however, Sheikh Kamran Shahzad, Advocate appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner has been nominated in the FIR. It is argued that all the nominated accused had acted in furtherance of the common intention and had caused injuries on the person of father of complainant, who died in the hospital. The club has been recovered from possession of the petitioner and above all the alleged offence falls within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. So he prays for dismissal of this bail petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. It has been noted that the petitioner has not been attributedany injury sustained by father of the complainant/deceased. The question of vicarious liability would be determined after recording of the evidence and not at bail stage. Besides, challan of the case has been submitted before the trial Court. Person of the petitioner is no more required for the investigation purpose. In these circumstances, to keep him behind the bars for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose of law rather would amount to punish him without a trial. This petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs: 200,000/- (rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.