Muhammad Rashid vs State and another
Through this petition, the petitioner Muhammad Rashid sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 289 dated 02.08.2020 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Muhammad Pur, District Rajanpur. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where no specific overt act of causing injury or death was attributed to him except aerial firing, making his case one of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner's culpability and the application of vicarious liability required further inquiry after recording evidence, especially as he was a previous non-convict and no longer required for investigation. The key principle laid down is that where no overt act is attributed to an accused other than aerial firing and the question of vicarious liability requires determination at trial, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused to whom no overt act is attributed except aerial firing is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the question of vicarious liability in a murder case warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is a previous non-convict entitled to bail when no longer required for police investigation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner Muha mmad Rashid seeks his release on post arrest bail in case/FIR No. 289 dated 02.08.2020, offence under Sections 302/324/148/149, PPC, registered at Police Station Muhammad Pur, District Rajanpur .
2. Precisely , the allegation against the petitioner is that he along-with his co-accused in prosecution of their common object, while armed with their respective weapons, committed murder of Muhammad Nasir and also caused injuries to the injured PWs by making fire-arm injuries.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. As per FIR, no overt act is attributed to the petitioner and he has only made aerial firing at the spot. The culpability of the petitioner coupled with question of vicarious liability would be determined by learned trial Court after recording prosecution's evidence. The petitioner being previous non-convict is behind the bars and no more required to the police for the purpose of investigation. These factors accumulatively render the petitioner's case within the realm of further inquiry . Resultantly , the instant bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only), with one surety , in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.