MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Hussain, who was accused in an F.I.R. registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was alleged to be part of an armed group involved in a land dispute that resulted in the death of Muhammad Ismail. The petitioner argued for bail on the grounds of his advanced age (68 years), which brought him within the proviso to Section 497(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the fact that he was only attributed with ineffective firing rather than causing any fatal injury. The Court examined these contentions, noting that the petitioner's age was supported by documentation and that the specific role of vicarious liability remained a matter for trial. Finding that the petitioner did not cause the fatal injury and considering his age, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to the submission of a bail bond in the amount of Rupees 1 lac.
- Does the attribution of ineffective firing to an accused in a murder case constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the advanced age of an accused be considered a mitigating factor for the grant of bail under the proviso to Section 497(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the question of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a matter to be determined at the trial stage rather than at the bail stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
As a result of the case bearing F.I.R. No,127 of 2001 dated 18-6-2001 under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Chowbara, District Layyah, Muhammad Hussain petitioner stands involved in the allegation that at the time of occurrence which took place on 18-6-2001 at about 3- 00 p.m. while armed with a gun .12 bore he alongwith his companions had embushed behind the bushes and the water drain. came out and he alongwith co-accused Tart-q, Yasin, Muhammad Sharif, Irshad Ahmad, Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Saleem and Zafar lqbal in furtherance of their common object fired towards the houses of the complainant party while his other companions Muhammad Hanif, Altaf Hussain and Abdul Salam inflicted injuries to Muhammad Ismail who died later on. The dispute in between the parties was over the land. So, at the instance of Muhammad Arshad son of the deceased the above said case was registered.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is an old man aged about 68 years so being infirm person his case falls within the proviso to subsection (4) of section 497, Cr.P.C., that ineffective firing is attributed to him meaning thereby he did not cause any injury to the deceased: that the question of vicarious liability is to be determined later on at the stage of trial; that there is a delay of about hours in lodging the report. therefore, in view of the circumstances as disclosed above it is a case of further enquiry. He referred to the cases reported in Saifullah v. The State (2001 PSC(Crl.) 317). Subedar Khan v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1559 Muhammad v. The State (1998 SCM R 454). Fraz Akram v. The State (1999 SCM R 1360) and Rana Muhammad Safdar v. Gulzar Ali alias Pappu and another (1999 PCr.LJ 1) which have been opposed by the learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant.
3. As per contents of the F.I.R. one thing is admitted that the role of ineffective firing is attributed to the petitioner even to this extent that he alongwith his companions fired towards the houses of the complainant party and while opposing the arguments it was not contended that there were signs of firing on the houses of the complainant party. During arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner produced photo copy of the NIC of the petitioner which shows that the petitioner is aged about 68 years. No fatal injury is attributed to him and that the question of vicarious liability is to be determined later on at the stage of trial, therefore it is a fit case for bail.
4. As a consequence of it Muhammad Hussain petitioner as admitted to bail in the sum of Rupees 1 lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge Layyah. Bail petition is accepted.
5. While accepting the bail bonds learned Sessions Judge concerned shall inform the petitioners for his attendance in the Court on a specific date so that his absence on any date could be avoided and after submission of challan the petitioner shall continue appearing before the learned trial Court till the disposal of the case.