MANZOOR AHMAD Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Manzoor Ahmad and Zahoor Ahmad, who were accused in an F.I.R. registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, including Section 302, for their alleged involvement in a criminal incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the specific allegations against them and the principle of consistency, considering that co-accused in the same case had previously been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the injuries attributed to the first petitioner were on non-vital body parts, while the second petitioner was only alleged to have fired in the air without causing injury. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that the petitioners' circumstances were identical or superior to those of co-accused already granted bail. Additionally, the Court determined that the issue of vicarious liability required further inquiry, thereby bringing the case within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused in the same case have already been granted bail?
- When does a case fall under the scope of further inquiry for the purpose of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the injuries attributed to them are on non-vital parts of the body?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Manzoor Amad and Zahoor Ahmad, the petitioners have sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.393, dated 2-8-2002 under sections 302/304/324/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/337-H(ii)/337-L(ii), P.P.C. registered with Police Station Luddan, District Vehari.
2. The facts of the case were mentioned by me in the order dated 3-3-2003 recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3372-B of 2002. The same, therefore, are not repeated here.
3. It has been contended on their behalf that they have falsely been roped in that their co-accused Riaz and Laloo have been allowed bail by this Court on 3-3-2003 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.367-B of 2003 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.3372-B of 2003, respectively; that the case of petitioner Manzoor Ahmad is quite identical to them; that ease of petitioner No.2 Zahoor Ahmad is on more better footing than them inasmuch as that he has been attributed only ineffective firing and injury to none; and that they are behind the bars and previous non-co nvicts.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that they are named in the F.I.R.; that Manzoor Ahmad petitioner has caused injury to P.Ws. Muhammad Ayaz and Muhammad Imtiaz while Zahoor Ahmad has made firing in the air; and that they are vicariously liable for the offence.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. As regards petitioner No. 1, he has been attributed injury with Sota to Muhammad Ayaz on his right shoulder and to Muhammad Imtiaz on his left upper-arm. These were on the non-vital parts of the body of the injured P.Ws. As regards petitioner No.2, he has allegedly fired in the air and threatened the P.Ws. that if anyone came near them he would be killed. No injury to anyone has been attributed to him. Their co-accused Riaz and Laloo have been allowed bail on 3-3-2003 as stated above. The case of Manzoor Ahmad is identical to them and that of Zahoor Ahmad better than them for the above reason. Hence, the rule of the consistency comes into play in their case.
7. Even otherwise, the question of their vicarious liability for the murder of deceased would be gone into at the trial. Their case, therefore, is also covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into their guilt. They are behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convicts.
8. In these circumstances, they (petitioners) are entitled to bail. This petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari/trial court.
H.B.T./M-1877/L Bail granted.