LIAQAT ALI Versus State M. Mahrban Ranjha , Muhammad Aslam S.-I.
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Liaqat Ali, in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was alleged to have participated in a murderous assault, though he was reportedly empty-handed, while co-accused were armed with firearms. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who allegedly caused a single injury classified as Shajjah-i-Mudihah, shared a common intention with the armed co-accused to commit murder, thereby justifying continued incarceration under the prohibitory clause. The Court held that the petitioner's liability regarding common intention constituted a matter of further inquiry. Furthermore, the Court noted that the specific injury attributed to the petitioner fell under a bailable offense, and that prolonged incarceration without a near-term conclusion of the trial was unjustified. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment when the case requires further inquiry and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon.
- Does the absence of a weapon and the attribution of a bailable injury constitute grounds for further inquiry regarding common intention in a murder case?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment when the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future?
- Is an offense falling under section 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered a bailable offense?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Liaqat Ali petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.118 of 2004, dated 14-9-2004 registered under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Budhla Sant, Multan.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner empty handed along with other co-accused while armed with different weapons launched a murderous assault upon the complainant injuring Muhammad Wazir and one Mst. Siani Mai was died during the said incident for having a grudge that Mst. Siani Mai the real mother of co-accused Rafiq and Hanif had married with complainant's father.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Muhammad Wazir has not contracted second marriage and he was keeping Mst. Siani Mai without contracting marriage. It is also contended that the petitioner admittedly was empty handed and even otherwise the injury attributed to the petitioner with the brick on the forehead of Muhammad Wazir was declared as Shajjah-i-Mudihah and falls within the purview of section 337-A(ii), P.P.C. and whether he shared the common intention or not is a question of further inquiry.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, opposes this application on the ground that the petitioner is named in the FIR. with specific role of causing injury to Muhammad Wazir and also vicariously liable for the murder of Mst. Siani Mai. Moreover, the offence falls within the prohibitory clause.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Admittedly, when the petitioner came to the place of occurrence was empty handed while Muhammad Hanif and Rafiq, who are real sons of deceased Mst. Siani Mai, the co-accused were armed with pistols. Whether the petitioner shared the common intention with the co-accused in the commission of offence or not, is a question of further inquiry. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased and only one injury attributed on the person of Muhammad Wazir, who allegedly was illegally and unlawfully keeping Mst. Siani Mia in his house without contracting any marriage only falls within the purview of section 337-A(ii), P.P.C., which is a bailable offence. The petitioner is behind the bars since 16-9-2004, who cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period as there is no likelihood of conclusion of the trial in the near future and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment if otherwise the case is found to be of further inquiry as is held in PLD 1992 SC 81. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioner shall be released from jail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
N.H.Q./L-140/L Bail allowed.