SAIF ULLAH Versus State
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Saif Ullah, in connection with F.I.R. No. 155 registered under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have only raised a 'Lalkara' and was empty-handed during the occurrence, was entitled to bail given the existence of a cross-version of the incident and the suppression of injuries sustained by the petitioner in the F.I.R. The Court observed that the petitioner was not directly connected to the stated motive and that the complainant party had allegedly initiated the aggression. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's vicarious liability and the sharing of common intention required further inquiry. The Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where there is a cross-version of an incident and the petitioner's role is limited to raising a 'Lalkara' without causing injury, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.
- Does the mere raising of a Lalkara by an empty-handed accused, in the presence of a cross-version of the incident, constitute a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail appropriate when the prosecution suppresses injuries sustained by the accused during the same occurrence?
- Does the existence of a cross-version of an incident warrant the grant of bail to an accused whose vicarious liability is in question?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Saif Ullah petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.155 registered at Police Station Vanike Tarar, District Hafiz Abad on 24-4-2005 in respect of offences under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been noticed by me that admittedly the petitioner was empty-handed during the alleged occurrence and he had not caused any injury to any person during the same. According to the F.I.R. the petitioner had raised only a Lalkara and had done nothing more. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the complainant party itself had approached the place of occurrence. During the investigation a cross-version of the same incident had been advanced by the accused party of this case and according to the said version it was the complainant party which had-aggressed against the accused party and had caused injuries to A two persons belonging to the petitioner's party, including the petitioner himself. In the F.I.R. the injuries sustained by the petitioner during the same occurrence had been completely suppressed. Apparently the petitioner was not directly connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. In these circumstances the question regarding sharing of common intention by the petitioner with his co-accused as also the question regarding his vicarious liability for the offence allegedly committed by his co-accused are questions which surely require further inquiry at this stage within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in. the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./S-423/L Bail allowed.