KHALID ALI vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Khalid Ali, in a criminal case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that no specific role was attributed to him, his co-accused had been exonerated during the investigation, and he had no prior criminal record. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of vicarious liability and common intention. The Court observed that the F.I.R. attributed only fist blows to the petitioner and his brother, while the post-mortem report indicated fatal injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. Noting that the co-accused had been declared innocent and that the trial had not yet progressed to the framing of charges, the Court held that the petitioner's involvement required further probe. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that where the specific role of an accused is ambiguous and the trial is delayed, the possibility of false implication warrants the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of specific injury attribution in an F.I.R. justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the co-accused, to whom similar allegations were attributed, has already been exonerated or granted bail?
- Does the lack of progress in a criminal trial, specifically the failure to frame charges, constitute a valid ground for granting bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Khalid Ali petitioner by way of the instant petition has sought his post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 536 of 2009, dated 15-7-2009 under sections 302, 34, P.P.C., Police Station Liaqat Abad, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no specific role is attributed to the petitioner and whatever role is attributed to him is collectively attributed to his co-accused as well, who has already been exonerated during the investigation; that petitioner is behind the bars without any progress in trial and the petitioner is previous non-record holder in any criminal case and that he is entitled to the concession of bail.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General while opposing this petition contends that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. and he is vicariously liable for the act of his co- accused who had caused fatal injuries to the deceased. She, however, after consulting the record confirms that no specific injury is attributed to the petitioner and petitioner is not a previous criminal record holder.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. I have noticed that according to the F.I.R. petitioner along with his brother And Ali (declared innocent during the investigation) is alleged to inflict only fist blows to the deceased and post- mortem report reflects all injuries caused by sharp-edged weapon except two simple injuries by blunt weapon and these two as per contents of the F.I.R. are collectively attributed to the present petitioner and his brother Arif Ali who has already been granted bail by the Trial Court. In these circumstances, possibility of the petitioner's false involvement being real brother of the principal accused cannot be ruled out and question of his sharing common intention and vicarious liability requires further probe. Petitioner is behind the bars without any progress in trial and learned counsel for the petitioner states that even charge has not been framed in this case. In these circumstances, I admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
6. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein above are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.