Muhammad Usman Ghani vs The State
This matter arises from criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking post-arrest bail in connection with an F.I.R. registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i)(ii), and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 over a dispute regarding warabandi. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to them, the suppression of injuries sustained by one of the petitioners in the F.I.R., and the non-applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the occurrence arose from a water dispute requiring determination of the aggressor, injuries sustained by an accused were suppressed in the F.I.R., and the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, the petitioners made a case for bail. The court laid down the principle that bail is appropriately granted where offences do not attract the prohibitory clause and crucial factual determinations such as aggressor identity and vicarious liability are reserved for trial.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the offences charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by an accused person in the F.I.R. justify the grant of bail?
- Is the question of vicarious liability to be determined at the bail stage or by the trial court after recording evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. - Criminal Miscellaneous No. 791-B, and Criminal Miscellaneous; No. 804-B of 2007 are being disposed of with this single order as both the petitions arise out of the same F.I.R.
2. The petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 66, registered with Police Station Kot-Zabzal, Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahimyar Khan on 18.3.2007 for an offence under Sections 302/324/337- A(i)(ii)/337-F(iii), P.P.C.
3. Briefly, the allegations against the present petitioners as contained in the F.I.R. Are that they while armed with different weapons caused injuries to the PWs during the incident, which took place over the dispute of warabandi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that they have not caused any injury to the deceased and the injuries caused to the injured PWs ascribed to the petitioners are simple in nature; and that during the incident petitioner Muhammad Anjum has also sustained injuries which are not mentioned in the F.I.R. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the State have opposed the bail application.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the available record. It has been noticed that during the incident Muhammad Anjum petitioner sustained injuries which are suppressed in the F.I.R.; that the occurrence took place over the turn of water and it is yet to be determined as to which of the party is aggressor; and that the offences with which the petitioners are charged do not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Furthermore, Muhammad Usman-petitioner/accused caused an injury to Sher Muhammad/PW, with the dimension of 1 cm x 1 cm, muscle deep, which attracts the provisions of offence under Section 337-F(iii), P.P.C., which is punishable with daman and imprisonment for three years. The injury attributed to Anjum petitioner on the person of Muhammad Anwar/PW also does not attract the offence falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The question as to the applicability of vicarious liability would be determined by the learned Trial Court after recording of evidence. In the circumstances, I am inclined to the admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.