MUHAMMAD ASIF Versus State
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Muhammad Asif, who was charged under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific facts of his case, including the nature of the injury attributed to him, the lack of recovery of a weapon, and the existence of a counter-version of the incident. The Court observed that the injury attributed to the petitioner was simple in nature and that investigation findings suggested he did not participate in the occurrence. Furthermore, the Court noted the existence of a private complaint filed by the petitioner's side, indicating a counter-version that required determination at trial. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell under the scope of further inquiry as per section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the observations made were tentative and should not prejudice the trial.
- Does the existence of a counter-version of an incident constitute a ground for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a bail petition be granted when the injury attributed to the accused is simple in nature and the accused is alleged to have been empty-handed?
- Is the question of vicarious liability for murder to be determined at the bail stage or during the trial?
- 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 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J .--Petitioner Muhammad Asif through the instant petition has prayed for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.470 registered under sections 302/324/148/149 and 109, P.P.C. with Police Station Danewal, District Vehari on 17-12-2008.
2. The facts of the case were recorded in the order, dated 18-5-2009, by his lordship Anwar-ul-Haq Pannu, J. as he then was, in the similar petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1299/B/2009, of his co-accused Muhammad Abbas alias Babba, Muhammad Saleem, Waseem and Idrees alias Disa. I, therefore, avoid to repeat the same here.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the petitioner has been ascribed blow with iron rod on the forehead of complainant Muhammad Ilyas. It may be mentioned here that a Sota blow, as per the F.I.R. has been cause by his co-accused Muhammad Amin to him (complainant) at his forehead. It is everybody's case before me that there was found only one injury on the forehead of the complainant on his medical examination. It has also been conceded by the prosecution side that this injury has been declared to be simple in nature.
4. It is relevant to mention here that his aforesaid co-accused Muhammad Abbas alias Babba, Muhammad Saleem, Waseem and Idrees alias Disa have been allowed bail on the reason, besides the others, that they have caused simple injuries to the P.Ws.
5. This position when may be viewed, the same then definitely makes his case on this account, to be quite identical at least to his those co-accused except Waseem.
6. The facts also remains that no crime weapon admittedly has been recovered from him. It is also everybody's case before me that during the investigation, it has been found that he in fact did not participate in the occurrence and rather was empty handed then. In this regard, I may also refer to the similar observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari in his order, dated 28-4-2009 on his such bail petition.
7. It may also be mentioned here that he earlier had applied for similar relief before this Court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous No.1498-B of 2009 and his such petition on the same date i.e. 18-5-2009 was withdrawn and it was dismissed as such.
8. It stands recorded therein that after arguments on the same at some length, the permission was sought to withdraw the same. It has been argued on his behalf that a private complaint from his side regarding the same occurrence against the complainant party had been filed and in the same on 5-10-2009, Mr. Shahid Rafique, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari has observed that on the basis of sufficient incriminating material on record, prima facie the offence is made out against them and they were summoned for 9-10-2009, for trial.
9. It has been argued by his side that such summoning order was after the dismissal of his said earlier petition and hence, this is a fresh development, which constitutes a new/fresh ground for bail to him after dismissal of his earlier bail petition. It is true that the accused in the private complaint brought by his co-accused Muhammad Yasin have been summoned by the said learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 5-10-2009.
10. I have the least hesitation to say here that the existence of counter version indicated above, as it is yet to be determined that who was aggressor and who aggressed upon.
11. It may be also mentioned here that it has been argued by the prosecution side that he is vicariously liable for the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased. I may say here that it is well settled proposition in criminal administration of justice that such question is always to be gone into at trial after recording of evidence. Hence, in view of all the reasons mentioned above, I am of the clear view that his case calls for further inquiry into his guilt so and the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
12. In these circumstances of the case, I find that case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, I accept this petition and admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
13. However, it is clarified here that the above observations are tentative in nature and meant only for the disposal of the matter in hand. These shall have no bearing at all on any body's case at trial.
14. It is, however, directed that the learned Trial Court shall decide his case as expeditiously as much is possible.
N.H.Q./M-768/L Bail allowed.