FIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Faiz Ahmad, who had been in custody for approximately one and a half years in connection with a criminal case. The petitioner was attributed a 'pahora' blow to the back of a prosecution witness, which resulted in a simple abrasion declared punishable under section 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, a bailable offence. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the minor nature of the injury attributed to him and the debatable applicability of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at the pre-trial stage. The Lahore High Court held that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner carried force, particularly regarding the minor nature of the injury on a non-vital part of the body and the determination of common intention at trial. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and released the petitioner on bail subject to the furnishing of appropriate sureties.
- Whether an accused attributed a simple injury punishable under section 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Can the question of vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be conclusively determined at the bail stage?
- Is a petitioner who has been in custody for a significant period entitled to bail when the injury attributed is on a non-vital part of the body?
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner has been in custody for the last about one and a half years. He stands Hurdened with a PAHORA blow on the back of Munawar P.W. According to the medico legal report about the said P.W. (Annex-D), the injury on the back of Munawar P. W's chest was found to be only an abrasion which was 6 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. which injury was declared to be a simple injury punishable under section 337-L(2) of the P.P.C. and was a bailable offence.
2. The injury thus attributed to the petitioner is a rather minor injury which was on a non-vital part of the body of Muhawar P.W. It is argued that an abrasion above-noticed could not have been the result of a PAHORA blow which was a rather heavy article and that there was an apparent possibility of the said abrasion having been received by Munawar P.W. by a fall or otherwise. It is also submitted that the petitioner had no common intention with any of the co-accused persons and had been falsely involved in the occurrence in question. It is added that the question of the applicability of the provisions of section 34 of the P.P.C. could in the present case be determined only at the trial and till then, the petitioner could not be held vicariously liable for the murder of Muhammad Anwar son of Gul Muhammad.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State opposes the grant of bail.
4. Having heard both the sides, I find that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner were not without force. Consequently, Faiz Ahmad petitioner is released on bail in case F.I.R. No,59 of 1996 dated 17-2-1996 of Police Station City Shorkot of District Jhang subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs,30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. Copy dasti.