NAVEED AKHTAR alias CHANDA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Naveed Akhtar alias Chanda, who is facing trial for an offence under section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who allegedly held the injured while co-accused inflicted knife blows, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail, noting that he was not the primary assailant, no incriminating material was recovered from him, and the complainant was not an eyewitness. The Court further observed that the applicant's alleged vicarious liability under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 remains a matter to be established through evidence at trial. The key principle laid down is that where the specific role of an accused is limited to facilitating the main assailants without causing direct injury, and where the prosecution's case against that individual requires further evidentiary proof, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the mere allegation of holding an injured person, without causing direct injury, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail under section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does a case fall within the scope of 'further inquiry' as contemplated by section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be granted bail when their alleged complicity under section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, is yet to be established by evidence at trial?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Applicant. Naveed Akhtar alias Chanda is facing trial for an offence under section 324/34, P.P.C. in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (East), Judicial Complex, Karachi arising out of F.I.R. No,302 of 2002 of Police Station Soldier Bazar.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as per F.I.R. lodged by complainant Muhammad Iqbal are that his son-in-law was dealing with the transport business. Accused Owais was notorious person of Muhallah and was absconder in a criminal case. He was arrested by the police several times on the ground of taking Bhatta from peaceful persons of the Muhallah. Muhallah people were tired of him. On 6-11-2002 at 5-30 p.m. there was exchange of harsh words in between his son-in-law and the said Owais. On 7-11-2002 at 6-00 p.m., complainant was informed by one Irfan that accused Owais, Javed and Naveed Akhtar had caused Chhuri blows to his son-in-law. Complainant went to the venue and found that his son-in-law was lying injured. He was removed to hospital and the case was registered against the accused. The present applicant was arrested on 11-11-2002.
3. After completion of investigation, police submitted challan and the case is pending trial in the aforesaid Court.
4. I have, heard Mr. Ejaz Khattak learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Habibur Rashid learned counsel appearing for the State.
5. It is argued that the allegations levelled against applicant Naveed Akhtar alias. Chanda are that he caught hold of accused Abdul Qahar whereas accused Javed and Owais caused Chhuri blows to the injured. It is argued that there was absolutely no need to catch hold of the injured and in fact the present applicant has been falsely implicated. So far complicity of present applicant under the provisions of section 34, P.P.C. is concerned that is yet to be established at the time of trial. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the applicant. It is argued that case of applicant is distinguishable from accused Javed and Owais.
6. Mr. Habibur Rashid learned counsel appearing for State has opposed the bail plea of the applicant.
7. The record shows that complainant Muhammad Iqbal is not an eye-witness. The details of incident had been conveyed to him by one Irfan. Police statement of Irfan shows that he has not seen the accused causing injuries to injured Abdul Qahar. Police statement of injured Abdul Qahar discloses that he was given Chhuri blows by accused Owais and Javed whereas the present accused facilitated them and caught hold of him. The complicity of applicant under vicarious liability is yet to be established when the evidence is recorded. Admittedly, he has not caused any injury to the injured. The statement of injured does not show anywhere that the applicant was armed with Chhuri. He is in custody since 11-11-2002. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from his possession. His case is altogether different from accused Javed and Owais.
8. Uncle these circumstances, the case of accused comes under the scope of further inquiry as contemplated by section 497(2), Cr.P.C .
9. He is granted bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD MAJID ABBASI alias JABAL Versus State 2018 YLRN 281
- ISRAR AHMED vs The STATE 2018 MLD 1142