ABDUL HAFEEZ vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Abdul Hafeez, sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 392, 324, 337-F(i), and 337-F(ii) read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning an incident where a co-accused allegedly committed murder via firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have caused simple blunt weapon injuries to prosecution witnesses after the fatal firearm injuries had already been inflicted by the co-accused, could be held vicariously liable for the murder of the deceased. The Court held that, prima facie, the petitioner did not facilitate the murder and could not be held vicariously responsible for the death based on the sequence of events described in the F.I.R. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused's alleged role is limited to causing simple injuries after a fatal act has already occurred, vicarious liability for the murder is not established at the bail stage.
- Whether an accused who causes simple injuries after a fatal act by a co-accused can be held vicariously liable for murder at the bail stage?
- Does the case of an accused fall under the category of further inquiry when the specific role attributed does not prima facie establish common intention for murder?
- Can bail be granted when the alleged role of the accused is limited to causing simple injuries to witnesses?
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Abdul Hafeez, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,964 of 1999, dated 6-11-1999, under sections 392/324/337-F(i), 337-F(ii)/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar Pakpattan Sharif at the instance of Mahboob Ali, complainant.
2. ' According to the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he caused Sota blows on Nabi Bakhsh deceased, Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din and Khalil Ahmad, P.Ws. While his co- accused Muhammad Iqbal caused fire-arm injuries on Nabi Bakhsh who succumbed to the firearm injuries.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the postmortem examination, there is no injury available on the person of deceased Nabi Bakhsh having been caused by Sota blow while two injuries available on the person of Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din are with blunt weapon and one injury on Khalil. All are simple in nature. It has been further argued-that from the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the petitioner is alleged to have caused Sota blows after the deceased and P.Ws. Had received fire-arm injuries, therefore, he has not facilitated the commission of murder of Nabi Bakhsh of his co-accused Muhammad Iqbal. Mere allegation against the petitioner is that with blunt weapon he caused simple injuries and prima facie he cannot be held vicariously responsible for the death of Nabi Bakhsh.
4. ' On the other side, the learned counsel for State has opposed the bail on the ground that the petitioner is nominated accused in the F.I.R. Specific role has been attributed and he is vicariously liable for causing the death of Nabi Bakhsh and the offence falls under the prohibitory clause.
5. ' I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner caused blunt weapon injuries on the prosecution witnesses after the deceased and the prosecution witnesses had received fire-arm injuries at the hands of Muhammad Iqbal co-accused. Therefore, prima facie, the petitioner is not responsible for having facilitated the commission of murder of Nabi Bakhsh and the role attributed to him for having caused injuries on the P.Ws. Cannot be termed at this stage that he is vicariously liable for causing the death of Nabi Bakhsh, therefore, the case of the petitioner falls under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. i.e, of further inquiry. Resultantly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.