KHALID alias KHADI vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Khalid alias Khadi, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 62 of 1998 registered under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kanganpur, District Kasur, for the murder of Muhammad Din. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was only alleged to have been present at the spot armed with a rifle and warning prosecution witnesses without causing any injury or firing a shot, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Lahore High Court held that the question of the petitioner's vicarious liability required further inquiry by the trial court after recording evidence, and noted that he was no longer required for investigation. The court ruled that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Whether an accused person assigned only the role of presence and keeping watch without causing any injury is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a case involving the determination of vicarious liability at trial fall within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Khalid alias Khadi petitioner seeks grant of bail in case F.I.R. No,62 of 1998 dated 20-2-1998 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Kanganpur, District Kasur.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that on 20-2-1998 at about 9-00 p.m., he being armed with rifle alongwith Muhammad Sarwar who was also armed with rifle in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of one Muhammad Din. Allegedly the petitioner while aiming rifle towards the P.Ws. Kept on warning them during the whole occurrence.
3. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur vide order, dated 6-11-1999. Hence the instant bail petition.
4. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, it has been noticed that the only allegation against the petitioner is that of his presence at the spot. Neither he caused any injury to the deceased nor even fired with his weapon during the whole affair. In the circumstances of this case, the question with regard to the vicarious liability of the petitioner is yet to be resolved by the Trial Court after proper appreciation of the evidence. The petitioner was arrested on 31-3-1999 and he is no more required for the purpose of investigation. Finding the case of the petitioner to be one of, further inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.