MUHAMMAD SAJID vs STATE and another
This criminal petition arises from a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, who was charged under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged only to have performed a 'Japha' (holding the victim) without causing any injury, was entitled to bail, particularly given that a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the petitioner was empty-handed, had not inflicted any injury on the deceased, and the police investigation indicated that while present, he had not committed an overt act of violence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation and the trial had not yet progressed. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is attributed a lesser role of merely holding the victim without causing injury, and is not required for further investigation, bail may be granted even in heinous offences.
- Is an accused who is alleged only to have performed a 'Japha' without causing physical injury entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused on the grounds of juvenile status automatically entitle another accused with a lesser role to bail?
- Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further police inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000
ORDER
Through this petition the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 12, of 2009 dated 1.1.2009, registered under Sectiops 302, 324, 34, PPC, at the Police Station Tlumba District Khanewal, with the allegation that the petitioner made a "Japha" to injured Muhammad Hussainan, brother of the complainant, when he was coming in a street towards his house and co-accused of the petitioner has inflicted injury on the person of the deceased.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motives. Further contends that Muhammad Waqas the main accused of the case has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.5.2009 passed in al. Misc. No, 1469-B-2009 and the role of the present petitioner is lesser than the role attributed to the co-accused. Further contends that the only allegation of "Japha" has been attributed to the petitioner. Further contends that according, to the police investigation, the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but he has not committed any offence. Learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Amjad Hussain and another Versus The State (2007 P.Cr.LJ.
1137) and Rasheed Ahmad Versus The State (NLR 2000 Crl. 514).
3. Conversely, the learned DPG appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail petition contending, that the petitioner is involved in an heinous offence with specific role. Further contends that the case of the co-accused who has already been granted bail by this Court is quite distinguishable to the case of present petitioner, as the co-accused was granted bail only on the basis of a tender age and his case falls under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly the present petitioner was empty handed at the relevant time and only allegation of Japha has been attributed to the petitioner. According to the police investigation, the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but he has not committed any offence. Muhammad Waqas the main accused of the case has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 21.5.2009 passed in Crl. Misc. No, 1469-B-2009 and the role of the present petitioner is lesser than the role attributed to the co-accused. The petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased.
The petitioner is behind the bar since his arrest and is no more required to the police for the purpose of further investigation. The challan has been submitted in the trial Court but no progress has been made as yet.
6. For the foregoing, reasons this petition is allowed sand the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 3,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.