PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 206
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J.
LIAQAT ALI--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 2567-B of 2023, decided on 18.4.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/109/427/ 440/148/149--Post arrest bail--Injury to PW--Bail allowed--Role attributed to the petitioner is that he made fire shot of Kalashnikov, which landed on the back side of injured PW--There is conflict between ocular and medical evidence--Vicarious liability of the petitioner or his sharing common intention with his co-accused for causing injuries--Injured PW as well as committing murder of the complainant’s mother shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording of evidence--The petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation--Petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail.
[Para 4, 5 & 7] A, B, C & E
2022 SCMR 1444; 1996 SCMR 1125; 2011 SCMR 902;
2017 SCMR 116 ref.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Mere involvement in a heinous offence is no ground for refusal of bail to an accused. [Para 6] D
2019 SCMR 1914 ref.
Khawaja Qaiser Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Adnan Latif Sheikh, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Mr. Muhammad Usman Sharif Khosa, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 18.4.2023.
order
Through this petition, filed under Section 497 Cr.P.C. petitioner Liaqat Ali has sought post arrest bail in case FIR No. 1005 dated 05.07.2022, in respect of offences under Sections 302, 324, 109, 427, 440, 148 & 149, PPC registered at Police Station City Jampur District Rajanpur.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case learned out from the contents of crime report are that the petitioner and his co-accused, in furtherance of their common object, formed an unlawful assembly, launched murderous assault upon the complainant party, and committed murder of the complainant’s mother and injured his sister Phaphal Mai as well as brother Amanullah, further detail has been given in FIR. Hence, this case.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant assiduously and perused the record.
4. After going through the narration of FIR and evidentiary material collected by the police and presented before this Court, it divulges that role attributed to the petitioner is that he made fire shot of Kalashnikov, which landed on the back side of Phaphal Mai, sister of the complainant (injured PW) whereas according to MLC, Medical Officer has observed the said injury as under:
“Injury No. 1.
A fire-arm about 1 cm circular e inverted margins blackening burning present going deep into skin about 3 cm above and between hips.”
There is conflict between ocular and medical evidence. Learned Law Officer has candidly conceded that up-till now injury of Phaphal Mai has not been declared by the medical officer that the said injury falls in which express penal provision.
5. Even otherwise, except above mentioned role, no other role is attributed to the petitioner, thus, vicarious liability of the petitioner or his sharing common intention with his co-accused for causing injuries to Amanullah, injured PW as well as committing murder of the complainant’s mother shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. In this respect, reliance can be placed upon the cases titled as “Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others vs The State” (1996 SCMR 1125), “Manzoor Hussain and another vs. The State” (2011 SCMR 902), “Wajid Ali vs. The State another” (2017 SCMR 116) “Muhammad Amin vs. The State and another” (2022 SCMR 1444).
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued with vehemence that the petitioner is involved in heinous crime, for the reasons, he is not entitled for the concession of bail. I am not in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the complainant because it is well settled law that mere involvement in a heinous offence is no ground for refusal of bail to an accused, who otherwise becomes entitled for the concession of bail. Reliance is placed upon the case law titled as “Hasnain Mustafa vs. The State” (2019 SCMR 1914).
7. The investigation has been completed. The petitioner is no more required by the police for further investigation. Fair and speedy trial is one of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest, facing the agony of trial and by keeping him in incarceration continuously would be nothing but a punishment without trial which is not the intention of law.
8. For the forgoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
9. However, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments