Muhammad Saddique vs The State and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 78/2015 registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail, contending that while he was nominated in the FIR, no specific overt act or injury was attributed to him, with only ineffective firing alleged. The Court examined whether the petitioner's case warranted bail, noting that the determination of vicarious liability and common intention required a full trial. Furthermore, the absence of a Forensic Science Laboratory report linking recovered weapons to the crime, the petitioner's status as a previous non-convict, and the completion of the investigation were pivotal factors. The Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the mere heinousness of an offense does not justify refusing bail when an accused is otherwise entitled to the concession, and that further incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
- Does the allegation of ineffective firing alone justify the denial of post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Is the heinousness of an offense sufficient ground to refuse bail if the case otherwise qualifies for further inquiry?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the prosecution has completed the investigation and the accused is a previous non-convict?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.78/2015 dated 29.03.2015 under sections 302, 148, 149 PPC, registered at Police Station Kanganpur, District Kasur.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that although the petitioner is nominated in the FIR yet no specific role has been attributed to him and only the role of ineffective firing is attributed to him therein. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased, so vicarious liability of the petitioner or sharing common intention by him with his co-accused for committing murder of the deceased shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. There is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding matching of empties with the gun allegedly recovered from the petitioner, therefore, the value of such recovery shall also be assessed by the learned trial Court at an appropriate stage. The petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 26.04.2015 without any fruitful progress in conclusion of his trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who other becomes entitled for this concession.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.