SAIFULLAH alias SAIFAL and 3 others vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in connection with a criminal case registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code including murder and hurt. The core legal questions involved the determination of whether the minor status of certain petitioners, the absence of specific overt acts or weapon attribution against others, and the requirement of further inquiry warranted the grant of bail. The Lahore High Court held that the case of the petitioners called for further inquiry under the first proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noting the young age of some petitioners and lack of specific attributable injuries for others, coupled with the duration of their incarceration. The court laid down the principle that juvenile accused whose maturity is open to question and co-accused against whom roles are doubtful or lack corroborative medical evidence are entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail pending trial.
- Whether the minority of an accused and the question of his maturity at the time of the offense make his case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Does the absence of sharp-edged weapon injuries corresponding to medical reports make the participation of accused persons doubtful warranting bail?
- Is an accused who was empty-handed and attributed no specific overt act entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 306, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioners were arrested in case F.I.R. No,116 of 2000, dated 3-5-2000 registered under sections 148/302/337-A(i), (ii)/337-F(i)/337-L(ii)/148/149, F.P.C. At Police Station Saddar, Dunyapur. The bail application of the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran vide order, dated 17-10-2000. Hence the instant petition for grant of post-arrest bail.
2. Brief facts for the prosecution case as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 3-5-2000 at about 10-30 a.m. Saif Ullah petitioner being armed with Sota, Saeed Ahmad armed with hatchet, Abdul Hafeez armed with hatchet and Ghulam Fareed empty-handed along with 13 others who were also armed with lethal weapons launched an attack upon the complainant party. Statedly, Muhammad Ashraf son of Faiz Bakhsh caused fire. With 7 MM rifle hitting Ghulam Shabbir on his chest. Muhammad Akram accused inflicted Toka blow on the head of Ghulam Shabbir. In the meantime, Muhammad Siddique were attracted to the spot and tried to intervene when Faiz Bakhsh caused Sota blow on the head of Muhammad Siddique. Saif Ullah petitioner inflicted Sota blow on the right side of forehead of Muhammad Siddique., At this stage Abdul Hafeez and Ahmad Yar P.Ws tried to intervene when all the accused persons collectively caused injuries to them. Statedly, Ghulam Shabbir died at the spot. Upon the hue and cry of the complainant party the inmate of the village were attracted and on seeing them all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.
Muhammad Siddique was taken to the hospital but on his way to hospital he succumbed to the injuries. During the investigation the petitioners were taken into custody on 26-5-2000 and their bail application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order, dated 17-10- 2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Saifullah and Abdul Hafeez petitioners were minor at the time of commission of offence and their case at the most would fall under section 306, P.P.C. Which is punishable with Diyat only. Ghulam Fareed petitioner was empty-handed did not cause any injury either to the deceased or to the injured P.Ws. No specific injury was attributed to Saeed Ahmad and Abdul Hafeez petitioner nor there was any sharp-edged weapon injury on the person of the injured witnesses to whom both petitioners allegedly caused injuries. Conversely, learned counsel for the State and complainant had vehemently opposed the application.
4. Heard. File perused.
5. Saif Ullah petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With a specific role of causing Sota blow to the deceased. According to the School Leaving Certificate available on the police file he was about 12 years of age at the time of occurrence. The question whether he was mature enough to understand and judge the consequences of his conduct on that occasion is yet to be seen by the trial Court. After proper appraisal of evidence; his case is also covered under 1st proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Abdul Hafeez petitioner was about 15/16 years of age at the time of occurrence. Allegedly he along with Saeed Ahmad petitioner and others armed with hatchet collectively caused injuries to the injured witnesses. None of them caused any injury to the deceased. According to the medico- legal report there was no sharp-edged weapon injury on the person of any of the injured witnesses.
In these circumstances, the participation of these petitioners also requires further inquiries. Ghulam Fareed petitioner was empty-handed at the time of occurrence and no overt act is attributed to him, in the F.I.R. All the petitioners are behind the bars for the last ten months and they are no more required for the purpose of investigation. In this view of the matter, finding the case of the petitioners to be one of further inquiry, entitling them to the concession of bail, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, one lac, each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.