EHSAN ULLAH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Ehsan Ullah, in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding the murder of Fazal Hussain. The petitioner challenged the refusal of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not alleged to have caused any fatal injury to the deceased but was accused of causing simple injuries to prosecution witnesses with the butt of a gun, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court observed that the petitioner did not cause any firearm injury to the deceased, rendering his vicarious liability for the murder a matter requiring further inquiry and investigation. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not attributed a fatal injury and their vicarious liability for the primary offence remains a matter of further inquiry, the case falls within the scope of further investigation, justifying the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when they are not attributed a fatal injury but are alleged to have caused simple injuries to witnesses?
- Does the absence of a specific fatal injury attributed to an accused render their vicarious liability a matter of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Ehsan Ullah son of Nazar Hussain, petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,471 of 2000, dated 26-10-2000, under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered as Police Station Noshera Virkan, District Gujranwala, at the instance of Muhammad Sharif, for commission of murder of Fazal Hussain.
2. ' Post-arrest bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala vide order, dated 30-5-2001.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. Was lodged with unexplained two days delay; that the petitioner has not been attributed any injury having been caused to the deceased but he has been alleged having caused simple injury to the prosecution witnesses with butt of his gun.
4. ' Conversely, the bail has been opposed by the learned State counsel by arguing that the offence falls under the prohibitory clause and the petitioner has actively participated in the commission of the crime.
5. ' Heard. Record perused.
6. The, petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased Fazal Hussain, but he has been attributed simple injuries to Ghulam Rasool and Zulfiqar, P.Ws. With butt of the gun. The petitioner has not caused fire-arm injury to any one during the 'occurrence, therefore, whether the petitioner is vicariously liable for causing death of Fazal Hussain is a matter of further inquiry and probe.
7. Resultantly, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.