NASIR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have fired a weapon that did not strike the deceased, was entitled to bail given the nature of his participation and the duration of his incarceration. The Court observed that the petitioner's fire was ineffective and did not cause any injury to the deceased, with the fatal injury attributed to a co-accused. Furthermore, the weapon recovered was a licensed firearm. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry as contemplated by Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that the determination of vicarious liability is a matter to be settled during the trial, and ineffective firing does not automatically preclude the grant of bail when the statutory requirements for further inquiry are met.
- Does ineffective firing by an accused in a murder case entitle them to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Is the determination of vicarious liability a ground for refusing bail in a murder case?
- Does the recovery of a licensed weapon impact the consideration of bail for an accused charged with murder?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner is arrested in case F.I.R. No,429 of 1997, dated 24-7-1998 under section 302/34, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he being armed with rifle 8 mm alongwith Muhammad Rafi son of Muhammad Siddique being armed with .12 bore gun made a murderous assault upon Asghar. Petitioner's fire did not hit Asghar deceased whereas the fire of Muhammad Rafiq hit the left shoulder of Asghar deceased, who fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the firing made by the petitioner was ineffective, that no empty was recovered from the spot; that the rifle recovered was also licensed one and lastly contends that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 1-1/2 years but the trial has not yet concluded. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned counsel for the State have opposed on the grounds that the challan has been submitted in Court and the trial has already commenced. Further that it is a daylight occurrence and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased and the only role attributed to the petitioner is of ineffective firing. The question of vicarious liability of the petitioner is yet to be determined. The weapon allegedly recovered from petitioner is licensed arm of the petitioner's father.
5. In the above circumstances the case of the petitioner is covered under section. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
Accordingly the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate.
Cited by 3 cases
- ABDUL WASAY SOOMRO Versus State 2017 YLRN 446
- YAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and anothers 2004 YLR 2230
- MAQBOOL AHMED vs THE STATE through Bakht Ali 2004 YLR 2275