Muhammad Ameen vs The State and another
This petition under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner caught the deceased, raised a 'lalkara' prompting his son to fire the fatal shot, and subsequently caused a simple head injury to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of further inquiry regarding his vicarious liability and common intention. The Lahore High Court held that because the fatal blow was attributed to the co-accused (the petitioner's son), the possibility of widening the net could not be ruled out. Furthermore, the petitioner's shared common intention and vicarious liability remained matters to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence. The Court established that mere absconsion is not a ground to refuse bail if an accused is otherwise entitled to it, and admitted the petitioner to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether the vicarious liability and common intention of an accused who only raised a lalkara and caused a simple injury to a complainant is a matter of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can post-arrest bail be refused solely on the ground of the accused's absconsion if they are otherwise entitled to bail on merits?
- Does the potential of the complainant 'widening the net' by implicating relatives of the main accused justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- 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 109, 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.334/2012 dated 26.05.2012 under sections 302, 324, 109, 34 PPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Beroni Rawalpindi.
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. The allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that he caught Muhammad Farooq deceased and made lalkara to his son to kill him on which Hamid Ameen caused fire are injury to Muhammad Farooq deceased. Later on, the petitioner gave blow on the head of the complainant, however , according to MLC of the complainant, the injury attributed to the petitioner is skin deep which could be considered as simple as the doctor has not declared the same till date as to under what section it falls.
Admittedly , Hamid Ameen, the main accused who has been attributed fatal injury to the deceased is son of petitioner 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. Admittedly , the petitioner is previous non-c onvict. He is behind the bars since 14.02.2015 without any fruitful progress in his trial. Investigation of the case is compl ete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. As far as contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner remained P.O. for considerable period, I may observe here that mere absconsion of accused is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise he becomes entitled to the grant of bail. Nobody could be kept in jail for an indefinite period. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose
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 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.