MUHAMMAD NASIR Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Nasir, who was implicated in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased, Muhammad Amjad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the F.I.R. and to whom no specific overt act was attributed in the prosecution's evidence, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court observed that the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. and that the statements of witnesses merely placed him in the presence of the co-accused who allegedly fired the fatal shot. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's vicarious liability for the murder required further inquiry, bringing his case within the ambit of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding that the petitioner was a previous non-convict and currently incarcerated, the Court accepted the bail petition, establishing the principle that where no overt act is attributed to an accused, the question of vicarious liability warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no overt act is attributed to them in the prosecution's evidence?
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does the question of vicarious liability for murder warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Nasir, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.437 dated 6-11-2002 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that he and his co-accused Muhammad Akram in furtherance of their common intention have committed the Qatl-e-Amd of deceased Muhammad Amjad.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that he is not named in the F.I.R.; that there is no direct evidence of the murder of the deceased against them; that the only role assigned to him in the statement of Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Zafar recorded on 9-11-2002 by the police is that he was merely present with his co-accused Muhammad Akram but has committed no overt act qua the deceased; that motive is also not directly relateable to him; that no recovery of incriminating material was effected from him and in such circumstances, the question that if he can be held liable for the alleged offence needs serious consideration and so his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars and is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he alongwith his co-accused had committed the Qatl-e-Amd of Muhammad Amjad deceased.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with help of available record.
6. He is not named in the F.I.R. Allegeldy, he had made extra- judicial confession before Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Zafar on 8-11-2002. According to their statements, he merely was present with his co-accused Muhammad Akram, who had fired at the deceased. So, according to their statement, he did not commit at any overt act qua the deceased. Thus, the question of his vicarious liability for his murder is to be gone into at the time of trial. His case, thus is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt. He is behind the bars and stated to be a previous non-convict.
7. In these circumstance, I find him entitled to bail. The petition therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1962/L Bail granted.