RASHID vs THE STATE
This post-arrest bail petition arose from a case registered under Sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that he was falsely implicated, only ineffective firing was attributed to him with no overt act causing the death of the deceased, and his trial had not yet commenced despite being incarcerated for nearly two years. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner was named in the First Information Report and was vicariously liable due to his active participation. The Lahore High Court observed that because only ineffective firing was attributed to the petitioner, the question of his vicarious liability remained a matter to be determined during the trial. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as it required further inquiry. The petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to bail subject to furnishing the requisite bail bonds.
- Whether a petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the only role attributed to him is ineffective firing?
- Does the question of vicarious liability in a murder case constitute a ground for further inquiry justifying the grant of bail before trial?
- Can an inordinate delay in the commencement of a trial, during which the accused remains incarcerated, support an application for post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Rashid, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,464 dated 11-10-1999, under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Mitro, Tehsil Mailsi, District Vehari.
2. The facts of the case were mentioned by me in the order dated 7-10-2002 recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous No,1981-B of 2002 titled "Muhammad Ramzan alias Akhlaq v. The State". The same, therefore, are not repeated here.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that only ineffective firing is attributed to him while no overt act qua the deceased; that the question of his vicariously liable is to be gone into at the time of trial; that he is behind the bars for the last about one year, 11 months and 16 days while so far his trial has not commenced even as is evident from the report received from the learned trial Court; and that he is previous non-convict.
4. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he had made at the time of occurrence firing and so is vicariously liable for the murder of the deceased.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The fact remains that only the role of ineffective firing is attributed to him. The question of his vicariously liable for the murder of the deceased is to be seen at the time of trial. His case therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into his guilt.
7. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about two years and his trial in the case as yet has not commenced even.
8. In these circumstances, the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- BASHARAT ALI vs STATE PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1280
- BASHARAT ALI vs THE STATE 2006 P Cr. L J 44