MUHAMMAD YASIN vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises out of an application for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Yasin in case FIR No. 23/2008 registered under Sections 302, 452, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Galaywal, District Lodhran. The core legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail, given the role attributed to him, the lack of recovery of the weapon, and the principle of consistency with a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The court held that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the question of vicarious liability would be determined at trial and that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated after completion of investigation. The petition was consequently allowed and the petitioner admitted to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail when the question of vicarious liability requires determination at trial?
- Does the absence of recovery of a weapon of offence during investigation justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether the rule of consistency applies when a co-accused has been released on bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' PERVAIZ INAYAT MALIK, J.-Muhammad Yaseen son of Muhammad Hanif, petitioner seeks post- arrest bail in case FIR No, 23/2008, dated 4.2.2008 registered at Police Station Galaywal District Lodhran, for offences under Sections 302, 452, 109, 148, 149, PPC. In the first information report the role attributed to the petitioner was that he was armed with 12-bore gun but did not cause any injury to the deceased.
2. It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the investigation weapon of offence was not recovered; that Muhammad Manzoor co-accused who was attributed injury on non-vital part of the body was released by this Court vide order dated 2.2.2009, passed in Crl. Misc. No, 3656-B-2008; that the case of the present accused compared to the co-accused named above, who was released on bail.
3. Conversely the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by Chaudhary Ghulam Miran, Advocate vehemently opposes this petition and contends that the trial in the case has commenced and the statements of two prosecution witnesses have already been recorded. Case of Muhammad Manzoor was not at par with the present petitioner because he was declared innocent during the course of investigation, whereas the petitioner has been found guilty; the petitioner was armed with 12-bore gun and he facilitated in the commission of offence of heinous nature. In his supplementary statement dated 4.2.2008, the complainant has implicated the present petitioner, wherein he has been assigned specific role of causing fire-arm injury on the right wrist of the deceased. Two PWs Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Saeed in their statements recorded by the police under Section 161, Cr.P.C., corroborated the version put forth by the complainant in his statement. The Investigating Officer has found the petitioner guilty which findings have been endorsed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police investigation. The learned counsel for the complainant adds that statements of five PWs have till date been recorded.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly the only role attributed to the petitioner is facilitating the principal accused in commission of the offence alleged against. No fire-arm weapon was recovered from him. Co- accused namely Muhammad Manzoor has already been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated 2.2.2009. The petitioner is behind the bar for the last more than one year. Question of vicarious liability shall be determined at the trial. No useful purpose would be served if he is kept behind the bar particularly when investigation is complete. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record and from the attending circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has made out a case of further inquiry within the parameters of proviso of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. This petition is therefore, allowed. The petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 500,000/- (five lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. He shall continue to appear before the learned Trial Court, if during the course of trial the learned Trial Court feels that this hail is being misused by the petitioner, in that eventuality he shall be at liberty to cancel the same.