MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus THE STATE

ORDER

The petitioner and two others namely Abdul Sattar alias Tahir and Zulfiqar are arraigned for committing the murder of Liaquat Ali, a brother of the complainant namely Ramzan in an occurrence which took place on 3-10-1996. The F.I.R. was lodged on 7-10-1996 in which it was contended that the petitioner while armed with sickle had caused injuries to Zulfiqar Ali P.W. by giving him two successive blows with it while the latter tried to save the deceased when he was under attack by the co-accused of the petitioner.

2. The bail for the petitioner is prayed on the medical ground as well as on merits. A report was called from the Medical Superintendent, Allama Iqbal Memorial Hospital, Sialkot, who reported that according to the Physician, the petitioner was diagnosed as patient of "Anxiety Neurosis" and was being given treatment, which was easily possible in the jail. No other abnormality was seen in the petitioner. As such, he has no case for bail on the medical ground.

3. Coming to the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no role is attributed to the petitioner for causing an injury to the deceased. He is only burdened with two simple injuries on the person of Zulfiqar Ali P.W. during the transaction. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to bail in view of the principle laid down in Qaisar v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1132 (Lahore) and Mumtaz Hussian and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCMR 1125.

4. The bail is opposed by the learned State Counsel on the ground that the facts of the reported authorities are different as in 1996 SCMR 1125 though the accused were armed with deadly weapons like rifle, gun and hatchet had only caused simple blunt injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses from the wrong side of their weapons. Likewise, in 1995 PCr.LJ 1132 (Lahore), a question had arisen as to which of the parties was an aggressor and in that perspective, following the principle of consistency, the accused were admitted to bail holding thereby that it had become a case of further inquiry. However, in the instant case, the petitioner had played an effective role because he had attacked a witness who tried to save the life of the deceased when he was under attack of the co-accused of the petitioner. As such, the part played by the petitioner attracted the principle of vicarious liability to link him with the main accused; and not only that he had assaulted a P.W.

5. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that each case has to be decided on its own merits. In the case in hand, the petitioner was armed with a sickle and he accompanied his co-accused who had given fatal injuries to the deceased. The deceased was yet under attack when Zulfiqar P.W. tried to intervene to save him, but he was prevented by the petitioner who assaulted him with a sickle thereby causing him injuries. On seeing this, the petitioner and his other co-accused also joining hands with him, attacked the injured P.W. after finishing the deceased. As such, the vicarious liability of all the three accused in causing the death of the deceased cannot successfully be distinguished at this stage. The petitioner has, therefore, no case for bail at present. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

N.H.Q./M-356/L Bail refused.