1986 P Cr (PLP)

(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307, 148 & 149‑‑Question of vicarious liability, held, could not be determined at bail stage as it would tantamount to a premature decision on merits of case. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V oaf 1898)‑‑-- ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307, 148 & 149‑‑Bail sought on ground of delay in F.I.R.‑‑Delay in F.I.R. found to be explained in report‑‑Question whether explanation was plausible, held, would be determined at trial in light of evidence‑‑Delay in F.I. R., could not be applied like rule of limitation in civil cases‑‑Bail refused. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1888)‑‑- ‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 307, 148 t 149‑‑Bail, refusal of‑‑Nature of injuries on accused negating contention that charge against accused was doubtful due to suppression of injuries on accused persons in F.I.R.‑‑Rushing to conclusion that perhaps complainant side were aggressor, held, would be hazardous‑‑Bail refused. Ghulam Murtaza for Petitioners. Naeem Malik for the State. Heard either side. The petitioners stand charged for the offences of rioting and attempted murder under section 307/148/149, P.P.C. on the allegation that they had on the first of March, 1978, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attempted at the lives of Taj Din and other witnesses in the case in furtherance of common object of the unlawful assembly. Allegations made in the First Information Report which should be treated as substantive piece of evidence for the purposes of disposal of application for grant of bail are well‑confirmed by reports of medical examination of Taj Din, Ibadullah, Mst. Hanifan and Ilyas. , The witnesses had in all ten injuries on them. Injury No.1 on the person of Taj Din which landed in the head was after X‑Ray examination declared grievous. The witness was in shock, restless, spitting blood and also bleeding from the nose when brought to hospital for treatment. The locale of injury on the person of Taj Din, the force with which it was caused, and the result it had produced appear to negate the contention that the ingredients of the offence under section 397 P.P.C. were not satisfied. Learned counsel for the petitioners was of the view that Manzoor Ahmed petitioner alone who is said to have caused the above said injury to Taj Din could be held guilty for the offence under section 307, P.P.C. Rule of constructive liability could not be applied against the remaining accused. The contention is, irrelevant as I may say so. The question of vicarious liability cannot be determined at the stage of bail as that will be tantamount to a premature decision on the merits of the case. The facts of the case justify the counter‑argument that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners were guilty of charge punishable with life imprisonment. The case is, therefore, hit by the prohibition in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. which bears grant of bail to the accused except on the grounds stated in proviso to subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.

2. It was next contended that the offence was reported to the Police after about 20 hours which shows that the time intervening the incident and the reports was utilised for consultations and embellishment etc. Possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. This argument is equally without force. Delay in the F.I.R. has been explained in the report. The question whether of not the explanation will be plausible shall be determined at the trial in the light of evidence. Suffice to say that delay in report is not applied like rule of limitation in civil cases. The number of injuries tends to show that the number of assailants may not be less than five as alleged in the report.

3. Lastly, it was contended that Manzoor Ahmad and Mushtaq Ahmad had some injuries on them which have been suppressed in the F.I. R. The charge against the petitioner was, therefore, doubtful. In view of the nature of injuries on the above-said accused this contention also does not take the petitioners any far. It will be hazardous to rush to the conclusion that perhaps, the complainant side were the aggressor. Application rejected as wholly without force. H. A. K. Bail refused.