SAMI ULLAH and anothers vs STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 269/14, wherein the petitioners, Sami Ullah and Kaleem Ullah, were charged with offenses under Sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the injuries attributed to them and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the injuries specifically attributed to the petitioners fell under sections not covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, as no direct injury regarding the deceased was attributed to the petitioners, their vicarious liability remained a matter for trial. Noting that the petitioners were previous non-convicts, the investigation was complete, and trial progress was minimal, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where attributed injuries do not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused's vicarious liability requires further inquiry, the accused is entitled to bail, provided they are not required for further investigation.
- Does an offense not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail?
- Is the mere commencement of a trial sufficient ground to refuse bail to an accused otherwise entitled to it?
- Can vicarious liability for a murder charge be determined at the bail stage when the specific injuries attributed to the accused do not fall under the prohibitory clause?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Sarni Ullah and Kaleem Ullah petitieners have sought bail after arrest in case FIR No, 269/14 dated 10.07.2014 under Sections 302, 337-A(i), 337- A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 148, 149, PPC, Police Station Rajoa, District Chiniot.
2. I has heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. According to the FIR, the role attributed to Sami Ullah petitioner is that inflicted a brick blow on left leg of Muhammad Irfan injured, while Kaleem Ullah petitioner is alleged to have inflicted brick blow on the left thigh of Muhammad Nawaz complainant. Although, the petitioners are named in FIR, yet the fact remains that the injuries attributed to them in FIR fall under Sections 337- F(i), PPC and 337- F(iii), PPC and the same do not come within the purview of the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. No injury is attributed to the petitioners on the person of Mst. Zohran Bibi deceased, therefore, vicarious liability of the petitioners in the commission of murder of Mst. Zohran Bibi deceased would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording evidence. Admittedly, the petitioners are previous non-convict. They are behind the bars since 24.08.2014 without any fruitful progress in their trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioners are no more required for further investigation. Mere commencement of trial is no ground to refuse the concession of bail to an accused, who otherwise, becomes entitled for concession of bail on the merits of the case. No useful purpose would I be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars.
3.. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioners becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are granted bail subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
4. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.