IMTIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(ii), 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an incident involving a dispute over dowry articles resulting in one death and multiple injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his specific attribution and vicarious liability. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner was specifically named in the promptly lodged FIR, armed with a weapon, actively participated in the occurrence by bringing out the detained person, and was prima facie vicariously liable for an offence punishable with death, supported by medical evidence and the investigative record. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is specifically named in a prompt FIR with an active role and vicarious liability in a heinous crime supported by corroborative medical and investigative material, the concession of post-arrest bail is not warranted at the early stage.
- Is an accused named in a prompt FIR with an active role entitled to post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Does vicarious liability under unlawful assembly bar the grant of bail at an early stage?
- Whether the absence of a specific injury attribution entitles an accused to bail when general participation and common object are established?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 186 dated 11.6.2003 registered under Section 302/324/337-A(i)/337-F(ii)/147/149 PPC at Police Station Industrial Area, Islamabad.
2. The prosecution case as narrated in the FIR by Shujat All complainant is that he was married with Mst. Rafia Bibi. He had two sons and two daughters out of the wedlock. Two months before the present incident on a minor dispute his wife had gone to her parent house. She filed a suit for custody of the minors. The learned Additional District Judge directed to hand over the children to her. The complainant delivered the custody in Court, then and there. The learned Court however orally observed that the relations have gone strained, therefore, the dowry articles be also returned to Mst. Rafia Bibi. On 11.6.2003 the dowry articles loaded in a truck were sent to the residence of his in-laws through his sister's son Asim alias Tipu, Muhammad Ali and two labourers. When they reached -at the residence of his in-laws located at 1-10/4, his sister son Asim alias Tipu was confined in the house and remaining persons were made to run away from the place.
3. On this information, complainants elder brother Akhtar Shah alongwith his sister's son Shah Rukh reached the house of accused and pressed the call bell. Asim alias Tipu was brought out. Saghir Hussain Shah armed with .12 bore double barrel, Sajjad Hussain Shah armed with hatchet Amir Hussain armed with Danda, Zamir Hussain armed with pistol and Imtiaz Hussain (petitioner) armed with pistol came out of the house and started beating all of us. They took all of us inside the house and confined in a room. After having bolted the room from inside, they caused injuries with the butt of rifle, Danda and Lathi. In the meantime, Nazim Shah armed with Lathi and Muntazir Mehdi armed with chhuri, Bhoola armed with Lathi and Mst. Rafia Bibi wife of Bashir Hussain with a brick in her hand alongwith three unknown persons came there. Amir Shah raised lalkara to teach the complainant lesson for divorcing their sister. All the afore-mentioned persons attacked the complainant and his companion. Saghir Shah and his co-accused caused injuries on the person of complainant, Shah Rukh, Naeem, Atif and Akhtar Shah (deceased).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been attributed causing of any injury either to the deceased or to the PWs; that the whole family has been involved in order to throw wider net; no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and that his case is open to further inquiry.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned Counsel for the State replied that the FIR was lodged promptly; the petitioner is named in the FIR: he was armed with pistol; he brought out Asim the detenu; actively participated in the occurrence; that he was vicariously liable for the commission of the crime and thus does not deserve concession of bail at this early stage.
5A. Akhtar Hussain Shah died as a result of this incident. Shujat Ali, Shah Rukh, Naeem and Atif are injured in the incident. Post-mortem report of the deceased and M.L.Rs of the injured PWs, prima facie, lend support to the ocular account.
6. Complainant's sister son Asim alias Tipu took the dowry articles for delivery alongwith Muhammad Ali and two labourers, who was allegedly confined in a room of the house. On arrival of the deceased and injured to ascertain the cause, he was brought out by petitioner alongwith two co-accused armed with deadly weapons. All of them gave beating and confined the injured, and the deceased in a room inside the house.
7. The petitioner was armed with pistol. He brought out Asim alias Tipu and then all of them started beating the complainant and his companions. The motive mentioned in the FIR is substantiated from the record.
8. The petitioner is vicariously liable for the offence in which one person lost his life while four persons received injuries. Investigation is complete. The petitioner has been found guilty by the Investigating Officer. The offence is punishable with death. The grounds urged by the petitioner in support of his petition does not entitle him to the concession of bail at this early stage.
9. In view of the above discussion, this petition is dismissed.