Mehmood vs The State and another
This is a criminal petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 whereby the petitioner Mehmood sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.403/2014 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, 337 A(i), 337 F(ii), 337 A(ii), 337 F(iii), and 337 F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Raja Jang, Kasur. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considering the nature of injuries attributed to him, the rule of consistency vis-a-vis a co-accused who had already been granted bail, and the statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, noting that he did not cause any fatal injury to the deceased, his attributed injuries carried lesser punishments, a co-accused had already been admitted to bail, and he had been incarcerated for a considerable period without trial progress. The court laid down that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail when an accused otherwise establishes entitlement thereto, and that potential over-implication in criminal cases warrants the grant of bail pending trial.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted under the rule of consistency when a co-accused has already been released on bail?
- Does the mere heinousness of an offence constitute sufficient ground to refuse bail to an otherwise eligible accused?
- Whether an accused who did not cause any fatal injury to the deceased is entitled to bail when his vicarious liability requires deeper appreciation of evidence at trial?
- Can prolonged incarceration without material progress in the trial serve as a ground for granting bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, 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(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337 F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Mehmood has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.403/2014 dated 26.11.2014 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, 337 A(i), 337 F(ii), 337 A(ii), 337 F(iii), 337 F(i) PPC, registered at Police Station Raja Jang, 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 of evidence is not allowed at this stage. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that he allegedly inflicted "Suble " blow on the head of complainant which injury falls under section 337 A(ii) PPC and carries maximum punishment upto five years only. Allegedly , petitioner alongwith co-accused Farooq also inflicted hatchet blow on right eye brow , right ear, left cheek and right elbow which injures have been declared by doctor as 337 F(ii) PPC and 337 F(i) PPC. The offence under section 337 F(ii) carries maximum punishment of three years only whereas 337 F(i) PPC which is bailable offence. Admittedly , the petitioner alongwith brother has been involved in this case so possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that the complainant has involved the petitioner by widening the net which is common practice in our society . Even otherwise, the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased, so vicarious liability of the petitioner or his sharing common intention 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. Co-accused namely Farooq of this case has already been granted bail after arrest by this Court vide order dated 02.02.2016, hence, the petitioner is also entitled for concession of bail under the ground of rule of consistency . Admittedly , the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 12.02.2015 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 otherwise 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 bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. However , the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of this case within six months positively after receipt of certified copy of this order under intimation to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and if the petitioner hampered with the proceedings of trial, the compla inant is at liberty to file application for cancellation of his bail.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.