SHAHNAZ vs THE STATE
The petitioner Shahnaz sought post-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No. 197 registered under sections 302/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and subsequently amended to include section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, accused of criminal conspiracy and not present at the spot, was entitled to further inquiry into his guilt under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that since a co-conspirator was declared innocent by the police and the manner of the alleged conspiracy required serious consideration, the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to bail, establishing the principle that where the credibility of conspiracy allegations and police findings regarding co-accused warrant deeper scrutiny, further inquiry attracts the benefit of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether an accused charged with criminal conspiracy and not present at the spot is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the declaration of innocence of a co-conspirator by the police provide a ground for further inquiry into the guilt of another co-accused?
- Can bail be granted to a previous non-convict behind bars when the evidence regarding the hatching of a conspiracy requires serious consideration?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Shahnaz, the petitioner has sought for after-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No.197, dated 20-7-2003 originally registered under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C., with Police Station, Bhera, District Sargodha.
The police subsequently have added section 13 of the Arms Ordinance No.XX of 1965 in the same.
2. Briefly the allegation against him is that he was party to criminal conspiracy to do away with the deceased Manzoor of Hussain.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that one of his co- conspirator Abdul Ali has been declared innocent .By the police; that the evidence regarding his being party to the conspiracy on the fact of it is not worth believing as ordinarily a person is not expected to indulge in such conspiracy so openly that others may hear it; that he is behind the bars; and that he is previous non-convict. In support of bail plea reliance has also been placed upon the case of Feroze etc. v. The State 2000 Law Notes (Lahore) 50 and Ahmad Jamal v. State PLD 1996 Lahore 261.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is principle conspirator/abettor in the case; and that he is also involved in other cases.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides with the help of available record.
6. As said above, the allegation against him is of criminal conspiracy with A his co-accused to do away with the deceased.
7. There are on the police record the statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of Mumtaz and Abdul Ghafoor to that effect.
8. It may be mentioned here that his co-conspirator Abdul Ali has been declared innocent by the police.
9. He was not present at the spot. The question that if he had hatched up conspiracy in the manner as mentioned by The aforesaid P. Ws. Needs serious consideration. Hence, his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Requiring further inquiry into his guilt. In this regard reliance is placed upon the cases of Feroze etc. v. The State 2000 Law Notes (Lahore) 50 and Ahmad Jamal v. State PLD 1996 Lahore 261.
10. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict, which has not been controverted by the other side.
11. In these circumstances, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.