RASHID-UZ-ZAMAN alias NANHA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Rashid-uz-Zaman alias Nanha, in relation to F.I.R. No. 327 registered at Police Station Mananwala, District Sheikhupura, for offences under sections 148, 302, 324, 149, 337-C, 337-D, and 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of ineffective firing and the absence of recovered incriminating evidence. The Court observed that the petitioner was only accused of ineffective firing, with no injuries attributed to him, and noted the absence of weapon recovery or corroborating evidence. The Court held that the issues of common object and vicarious liability required further investigation during the trial. Consequently, the Court granted bail, ruling that the petitioner's case fell within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to establish a prima facie connection through weapon recovery or specific injury attribution, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does an allegation of ineffective firing without injury attribution constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when no weapon is recovered from the accused's possession to corroborate the F.I.R. allegations?
- Is the question of vicarious liability and sharing a common object a matter for trial rather than bail proceedings?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Rashid-uz-Zaman alias Nanha petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,327 registered at Police Station Mananwala, District Sheikhupura on 3-10-2002 for offences under sections 148/302/324/149, P.P.C. Section 337-C, 337-D and 337-A(ii), P.P.C. Are said to have been added to the F.I.R. At a later stage.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that according to the F.I.R. The petitioner stands saddled with the responsibility of indulging in ineffective firing only and admittedly nobody had received any injury at the hands of the present petitioner. It is riot disputed that no crime-empty was recovered from the scene of the crime and also that during the investigation no weapons was recovered from the petitioner's possession so as to lend support or corroboration to the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R.
Regarding indulging in firing. Apparntly the petitioner does not stand connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. In these circumstances the question regarding sharing of common object by the petitioner with his co-accused as also the question regarding vicarious liability of the petitioner for the offences allegedly committed by his co-accused are questions which require further probe and the same shall be attended to by the learned trial Court at the time of the trial on the basis of the evidence to be led before it.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.