MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus THE STATE
This post-arrest bail petition was filed by Muhammad Siddique in a case arising out of FIR No. 137 dated 25-5-2003, registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 337-A(i)(ii), 337-F(i)(v), and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari. The core question before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in circumstances involving cross-firing where no specific role was attributed to him. The High Court observed that no specific injury to the deceased or any other person was attributed to the petitioner in the FIR, and even a witness's Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement alleging a Sota blow did not assign any specific injury. Moreover, both sides had engaged in firing and sustained injuries. The Court held that the petitioner's vicarious liability required determination at trial, rendering his case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the bail petition was accepted subject to furnishing requisite bail bonds.
- Whether an accused to whom no specific injury is attributed in the FIR or in statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Whether the determination of vicarious liability in a cross-firing case falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the lack of attribution of specific injuries during an incident where both parties sustained injuries justify the grant of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i)(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i)(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner Muhammad Siddique through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.137, dated 25-5-2003 originally registered under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. with P.S. Gaggo, District Vehari. Later on, the police have added sections 337-A(i) (ii)/337-F(i)(v) and 337-L(ii), P.P.C. in the same.
2. Here I would like to mention that the bail petitions of his co -accused Muhammad Amin, Nazir Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad and Ghulam Ghous were dealt with by my learned brother Muhammad Akram Baitu, J. on 3-3-2004. He is not available at this Bench these days. 1, therefore, proceed to decide the instant petition.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that no specific injury either to the deceased or anyone else has been ascribed to him in the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that in the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Sarwar son of Inayat, he has been ascribed Sota blow to injured Mst. Rasoolan Bibi. I have gone through his statement. In the same too no specific injury even to the said lady has been ascribed to him.
5. It is evident from the F.I.R. that both the parties had fired at each other and during the same deceased Rana Qurban Ali and others from both the sides have sustained injuries.
6. The question of his vicarious liability is to be gone into at trial. His case, therefore, is one of further inquiry into his guilt and so the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
7. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-722/L Bail granted.