QASIM ALI vs THE STATE
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Qasim Ali, who was charged under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mohsin Raza and the attempted murder of Fateh Muhammad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was allegedly empty-handed and only accused of raising a 'Lalkara' (incitement) without direct involvement in the physical assault, was entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry. The Court held that since the petitioner was unarmed and had no direct motive against the victims, the determination of his vicarious liability under the doctrine of common intention required further investigation at trial. Consequently, the Court granted bail, ruling that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is alleged to have shared common intention but lacks a direct role or weapon, the question of vicarious liability warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does the mere act of raising a Lalkara without physical injury or possession of a weapon justify the denial of bail in a murder case?
- When does a case fall under the category of further inquiry for the purpose of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the question of their vicarious liability for common intention remains to be determined at trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Qasim Ali, the petitioner has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. 161 dated 3-4-2002 under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Luddan, District Vehari.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 3-4-2002 at 6-45 p.m he and Shaukat Ali in furtherance of their common intention have committed the Qatl-i---Amd of Muhsan Raza deceased and attempted the Qatl-e-Amd Fateh Muhammad injured.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that admittedly he was empty-handed at the time of alleged incident; that he has no motive directly to murder the deceased or to injure Fateh Muhammad that no injury was caused to Ghulam Abbas to whom they allegedly intended to injure; that he did not cause injury to any one that the question that if he can be held vicariously liable for the murder of Mohsin Raza or injuring Fateh Muhammad, is to be gone into at the trial and thus his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into his guilt: and that he is behind the bars for the last about nine months and a previous non-convict.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he not only took away the motorcycle of Ghulam Abbas without his permission but also raised Lalkara that he (Ghulam Abbas) be taught a lesson for refusal to take him to his house on motorcycle; that he shared common intention with his co-accused in murdering the deceased Mohsin Raza and injuring Fateh Muhammad.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
6. Admittedly, he was empty-handed at the time of alleged 'incident. The only role ascribed to him is of raising Lalkara during the commission of the same. He has been assigned no direct motive against the deceased or the injured Fateh Muhammad. The question of his sharing common intention in the murder of deceased Mohsin Raza and attempt on the life of Fateh Muhammad injured is to be gone into at the time of trial. His case, therefore, certainly calls for further inquiry into his guilt and so is covered under subsection. (2) of section 497, Cr. P.C. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about nine months and a previous non-convict.
7. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. I therefore, accept this petition and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari/trial Court.