NAZAR KHAN vs THE STATE and another
This post-arrest bail petition arose from F.I.R. No. 16 registered under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Dinga, District Gujrat. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, armed with an iron rod, alongside co-accused attacked the complainant's brother due to previous litigation. The core question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail where the specific injury attributed to him was on a non-vital body part and vicarious liability was yet to be established. The Lahore High Court held that the only specific injury attributed to the petitioner was on the left thumb, falling under Section 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is bailable. The Court observed that vicarious liability for the remaining injuries must be determined at trial, rendering his case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Noting his detention, lack of prior convictions, and the rule that commencement of trial does not bar bail, the petition was allowed.
- Whether an accused specifically attributed with a bailable injury on a non-vital body part is entitled to bail when vicarious liability for other injuries remains to be determined at trial?
- Whether the determination of vicarious liability under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 makes a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the commencement of a criminal trial operate as an absolute bar against granting post-arrest bail to an accused?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Nazar Khan by way of the instant petition has prayed for bail after-arrest in case F.I.R. No,16 registered under section 324 read with section 34, P.P.C. With Police Station Dinga, District Gujrat on 13-1-2010.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 13-1-2010 at about 1-15 p.m. Muhammad Asjad armed with hatchet, Nazar Khan (petitioner) with iron rod and two unknown persons having Dandas, in furtherance of their common intention, attacked Riaz Ahmad, the brother of the complainant,. And inflicted him injuries. Muhammad Asjad inflected him hatchet blow on his head.
Nazar Khan inflicted him blow with iron rod on his left thumb. Muhammad Asjad then gave him hatchet blow on right shin. He fell down and thereafter all the accused gave him injuries with their respective weapons on the various parts of his body. The motive behind the occurrence is previous litigation between the parties.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the only specific injury attributed to the petitioner is at the left thumb of injured Riaz Ahmad. It is a non-vital part of the body.
4. According to the Medico-legal. Report of the injured, he had six injuries on his body. Out of these, Injury No,2 'stands specifically attributed to him in the F.I.R. As mentioned above. This has been declared to be Shajja-e-Ghair Jaifa by the doctor. This, if at all may be taken to be so, at the best, it would cover his case within the purview of section 337-F(i), P.P.C. Which is bailable. As regards the rest of the injuries on the body of the injured, he, at best, may be held liable vicariously for the same. It is, while, well settled proposition in criminal administration of justice that such liability is to be determined at trial. Hence, when seen from that angle, his case would be requiring further inquiry into his guilt and so, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. He is statedly behind the bars for the lag about five and a half month and previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.
6. I have been informed that his trial has commenced. The same but itself may not be a clog in his way to the relief prayed for, in view of the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 SC 585). He, therefore, has made out case for bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.