MUHAMMAD JAVAID vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Javaid, following the rejection of his bail application by the Sessions Judge, Vehari. The petitioner was charged under sections 302, 337-A(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Sadar, Mailsi. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have held the deceased's arm while a co-accused inflicted a fatal injury, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court observed that the petitioner was empty-handed and caused no injuries. Determining his vicarious liability and common intention was deemed a matter for trial. Noting that the investigation was complete and the petitioner had been incarcerated for approximately one year, the Court held that his case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where an accused's specific role and vicarious liability require deeper evidentiary scrutiny at trial, continued incarceration is unnecessary when the investigation is complete.
- Does the allegation of holding the deceased while a co-accused inflicts injury constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when they were empty-handed and the investigation is complete?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' After rejection of his application for post-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari on 24- 4-1999 Muhammad Javaid petitioner has now approached this Court for the same relief in case F.I.R. No,29 registered at Police Station Sadar, Mailsi, District Vehari on 1-2-1998 for offences under section 302/337-A(ii)/34, P. P.0 .
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the petitioner was empty-handed during the occurrence in question and that he had not caused any injury to the deceased or the injured witness: The only allegation levelled against him in the F.I.R. Is that he had held an arm of the deceased when his co-accused had given the first dagger blow to the deceased. The questions of the petitioner's participation in the occurrence in question, his common intention as well as vicarious liability for the offences allegedly committed by his co-accused shall be gone into at the time of the trial. The challan in this case has already been submitted after finalization of investigation. The petitioner has already spent about a year in jail in connection with this case. No useful purpose is likely to be served at this stage by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Thus, the case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail 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.