MUHAMMAD RAMZAN 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 case FIR No. 20 of 2016 registered under sections 302, 337-A(vi), 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Pir Mahal District Toba Tek Singh. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific role attributed to him, the applicability of further inquiry under Section 497(2), and the statutory delay in the commencement of the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case falls within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as he was not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased and his vicarious liability required trial determination. The Court established that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail when an accused is otherwise entitled to the concession, and prolonged incarceration without trial progress justifies granting bail.
- Does the absence of a fatal injury attributed to an accused make his case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground that the offense charged is heinous in nature?
- Whether prolonged incarceration without fruitful progress in the trial entitles an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail?
- 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(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---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(2), 148, 149, P.P.C., 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), P.P.C. 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 along with 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 v. The State 1996 SCM R 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 subsection (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.