Azhar Hussain vs The State and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 330/2015 registered under sections 337L(ii), 337A(i), 337F(i), 337F(vi), 302, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Talagang, District Chakwal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was attributed a bailable injury and did not cause any injury to the deceased, is entitled to post-arrest bail pending the determination of his vicarious liability and common intention. The court held that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the petitioner is a previous non-convict, has been incarcerated without trial progress, and that his continued detention would serve no useful purpose. The petition was accordingly allowed and bail granted subject to surety bonds.
- Whether an accused who inflicted a bailable injury and did not cause any injury to the deceased is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Does the mere heinousness of an offence serve as a ground to refuse bail to an otherwise entitled accused?
- Whether the question of vicarious liability and sharing of common intention requires further inquiry at the bail stage when the accused is not attributed the fatal injury?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 337L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.330/2015 dated 07.10.2015 under sections 337 L(ii), 337 A(i), 337 F(i), 337 F(vi), 302, 34 PPC, registered at Police Station Saddar Talagang District Chakwal.
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 assis tance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. The allegation against the petitioner is that he while armed with hatchet inflicted the injury on the wrist of left arm of Tanvir Ahmad complainant which injury was declared by the Doctor as 337 L(ii) PPC which is bailable in nature. 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. In this respect, reliance can be placed on Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others vs The State 1996 SCMR 1125 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Court has held as under:- Accused despite being allegedly armed with deadly weapons like rifle, gun and hatchet had only caused simple blunt injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses using the wrong side of their- weapons---Question whether the accused in such circumstances shared common intention with co-accused who had caused death of the deceased needed further inquiry---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal in circumstances and accused were admitted to bail accordingly .
Admittedly , the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 25.03.2015 without any fruitful progress in his trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. Nobody could be kept in jail for an indefinite period. 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 petitio n 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 two sureties each 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.