MUHAMMAD MURRAD vs THE STATE and anothers
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under sections 302, 337-F(i), 337-A(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was specifically named in the F.I.R. for causing injuries to an injured witness and had absconded for over three years, was entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the charges and his history of abscondence. The Court held that the petitioner was not attributed with the fatal injuries caused to the deceased, and the injuries he allegedly caused to the witness were simple in nature. Furthermore, the Court determined that the question of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could not be definitively resolved at the bail stage. The Court laid down the principle that where a case falls within the scope of further inquiry, mere abscondence is not an absolute bar to the grant of bail, and the petitioner was accordingly admitted to bail.
- Does the mere fact of abscondence automatically disentitle an accused to the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can the issue of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be conclusively determined at the bail stage?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the specific injuries attributed to them are simple in nature and they are not linked to the fatal injuries of the deceased?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAMIM KHAN, J.---Muhammad Murrad, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered against him vide F.I.R. No, 63 of 2007 dated 11-2-2007 offences under sections 302, 337-F(i), A(i), and 34, P.P.C. At Police Station Daira Rahim, District Sahiwal.
2. According to FA.R. On 11-2-2007 at about 8-00 a.m. Co-accused of the petitioner Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Tariq inflicted injuries with their respective hatchets on the person of Muhammad Aslam Khan who succumbed to injuries at the spot. Allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. Was that he inflicted injuries with hatchet on the person of Zahoor Ahmad, P.W.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that motive of prosecution story was not attributed to the petitioner; that there was no allegation against the petitioner that he caused any injury on the person of Muhammad Aslam Khan deceased; that allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. Was that he inflicted injuries with hatchet on the person of Zahoor Ahmad, P.W; that Zahoor Ahmad, injured P.W was medically examined by the doctor on 11-2-2007 who observed two injuries . On the person of Zahoor Ahmad, injured P.W with hatchet which were declared simple in nature, whereas remaining four injuries were abrasion and swelling; that vicarious liability cannot be looked into at bail stage; that petitioner was arrested on 29-9-2010 and he is behind the bars for about last nine months; that although petitioner remained absconder yet mere abscondence is not a valid ground for refusal of bail to petitioner, if otherwise petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail. Reliance has been placed on the case of Mumtaz Ali v. The State PLD 2007 Kar. 127 and Muhammad Mansha v.
The State (2006 PCr.LJ 47) (Lahore).
' Therefore, it is prayed that by accepting this petition, petitioner is liable to be released on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned D.P.-G. Have opposed this petition on the grounds that petitioner is specifically nominated in the promptly lodged F.I.R.; that that there is allegation against the petitioner that he inflicted six injuries with hatchet on the person of Zahoor Ahmad, injured P.W; that this occurrence took place at day time, therefore, there is no chance of misidentification; that petitioner remained absconded for a period of more than three years which disentitles him for the grant of bail; that common intention of the petitioner with his co-accused is also established from the record; that trial of the case has been started. Therefore, it is prayed that this petition is liable to be rejected.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. Petitioner is not connected with the motive part of the prosecution story rather motive is attributed to Bashir Ahmad Machi. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he caused any injury on the person of Muhammad Aslam Khan, deceased and there was allegation against Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Tariq, co-accused of the petitioner that they caused death of deceased Muhammad Aslam Khan. The allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. Was that he inflicted hatchet blows on the person to Zahoor Ahmad, injured P.W. Perusal of medical examination of Zahoor Ahmad, injured P.W reveals that doctor observed six injuries on his person.
Injuries Nos.1 and 2 on the person of Zahoor Ahmad, injured P.W were caused with sharp-edge weapon which were declared Shajja Khafifah. Remaining four injuries were swelling and abrasions which were also simple in nature. Vicarious liability of the petitioner with his co-accused cannot be looked into at bail stage. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last about nine months. Although the petitioner remained absconder for a period of more than three years yet as the case of the petitioner comes within the purview of Further inquiry, therefore, mere abscondence is not a valid ground for refusal of bail to petitioner.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail subject to his furnishing bails bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
8. It has been noticed that charge in this case was framed on 7-12-2010 but learned trial court has recorded only one P.W., therefore, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of this case within four months positively on the receipt of this order.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD TANVEER vs The STATE through Anees-ul-Arfeen 2014 P Cr. L J 1096
- KOOMBHO and another vs The STATE 2013 MLD 1218