Muhammad Ramazan vs The State and another
This matter arises from a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 20 of 2016 registered under sections 302, 337 A(vi), 337 A(ii), 337 A(i), 337 F(i), 337 L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question pertained to whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature of the specific injury attributed to him and the applicability of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner did not cause any fatal injury to the deceased and the question of his vicarious liability and common intention required deeper appreciation and determination by the trial court, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused who is otherwise entitled to the concession, and that an accused cannot be kept in jail indefinitely when investigation is complete and trial has not progressed.
- Whether an accused who has not caused any fatal injury to the deceased is entitled to post-arrest bail when his vicarious liability requires determination at trial?
- Does the mere heinousness of an offence constitute sufficient ground to refuse bail to an otherwise eligible accused?
- Can an accused be kept in incarceration indefinitely pending trial when the investigation is complete and no useful purpose is served?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337 A(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337 A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337 A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337 F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337 L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Muhammad Ramazan has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.20/2016 dated 15.01.2016 under sections 302, 337 A(vi), 337 A(ii), 337 A(i), 337 F(i), 337 L(ii), 148, 149 PPC, registered at Police Station Pir Mahal District Toba Tek Singh.
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 blow with iron-rod on the head of Naseer injured which injury falls under section 337 A(ii) PPC and carries maximum punishment upto five years only. Allegedly, petitioner also caught holds the brother of complainant whereupon his co-accused Lal inflicted hatchet blow on his head. Admittedly, the petitioner alongwith his two brothers 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. Admittedly, the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 20.03.2016 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 petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (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.