MUHAMMAD JAVED and another vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Javed and Yasin, who were nominated in an FIR involving charges under Sections 302, 324, 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 that the specific injuries attributed to them did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and considering the issue of vicarious liability. The Court held that since the injuries attributed to the petitioners were not within the prohibitory clause and the question of their vicarious liability for the deceased's death required further probe, they were entitled to bail. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be refused solely on the basis of vicarious liability without positive evidence of the accused's role in the crime. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioners were admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds, with the Court noting that these observations were tentative in nature.
- Can bail be refused solely on the basis of vicarious liability without positive evidence of the accused's role in the crime?
- Does an offense under Section 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the case requires further probe into their guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Javed and Yasin petitioners seek post arrest bail in case FIR No, 84/2014 dated 18.03.2014, under Sections 302/324/337F(iii)148/149, PPC registered at P.S. Saddar Mian Channu, District Khan ewal.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioners is that they while armed with fire arms made fires which landed, on the left hand and left shoulder of Noor Smand PW.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
4. Although the petitioners are nominated in the FIR and a specific role of causing injuries; on the person of Noor Smand PW is attributed to them yet both the injuries attributed to the petitioners on the person of the injured have been declared as falling under Section 337-F(iii), PPC which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Admittedly no injury or any overt act towards the deceased is attributed to the petitioners. Eight (08) out of thirteen (13) accused persons nominated in the FIR have been declared innocent including Muhammad Zafar who was burdened with causing fatal injury on the person of the deceased. Whether the petitioners are vicariously liable by the act done by other co-accused, would be adjudged by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. They are stated to be previously non convicts and there is no record against them They are behind the bars since their arrest. Challan against them has been submitted before the learned trial Court where trial has not commenced so-far. No useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars for an indefinite period. Reliance is placed upon the case of "Faqir Hussain alias Balli vs. The State" (2014 SCM R 1502) and "Manzoor Hussain and another vs. The State"
(2011 SCM R 902) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "Vicarious liability- principle-Bail cannot be refused on the basis of vicarious liability, unless it is shown through positive evidence that indeed account had played a role in the crime in question".
5. In view of the above, the matter requires further probe into the guilt of the petitioners as contemplated under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to post arrest all subject to their furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- each (Rupees two lac only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made supra are tentative in nature.