GHULAM QADAR alias MUMMA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Ghulam Qadar alias Mumma, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under sections 148, 302, 324, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have raised a 'Lalkara' and engaged in ineffective firing without causing any physical injury, was entitled to bail given the seven-day delay in lodging the First Information Report. The Court held that the petitioner's vicarious liability and the extent of his common object with co-accused required further probe during the trial. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry into guilt. The Court granted bail, emphasizing that as the investigation was complete and the challan submitted, continued incarceration served no beneficial purpose. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is alleged to have committed ineffective firing and the determination of vicarious liability requires deeper evidentiary scrutiny, the case warrants the grant of bail under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the allegation of ineffective firing and raising a Lalkara without causing injury warrant further inquiry into the guilt of an accused for the purpose of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted?
- Can the question of vicarious liability and sharing a common object be considered a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- 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 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Ghulam Qadar alias Mumma petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.84 registered at Police Station Mandi Ahmad Abad, District Okara on 7-5-2002 for offences under sections 148/302/324/149, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and goingthrough the record its has been noticed that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a delay of seven days and in the said F.I.R.
The petitioner had been shown to be armed with a rifle but admittedly he had not caused any injury to any person during the said incident. According.To the F.I.R. The petitioner stands saddled with the resistibility of raising a Lalkara and then indulging in ineffective firing. In these circumstances the question regarding sharing of common object by the petitioner with his co- accused as also the question regarding his vicarious liability for the offences allegedly committed by his co-accused shall be gone into by the learped trial Court at the time of the trial and the said questions call for further probe at this stage. The challan in this case has already been, submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview ofsubsection (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 one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.