AWAL RAHMAN and anothers vs THE STATE and anothers
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two brothers, Awal Rahman and another, who were charged under Sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Takht Nasrati, District Karak. The petitioners challenged the orders of the lower courts that had previously refused them bail. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence available at the pre-trial stage. The Court observed that while the petitioners were nominated in the promptly lodged F.I.R., the specific role of firing, which caused injuries to the complainant, was attributed to their father, not the petitioners. Consequently, the Court held that the applicability of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding common intention required further inquiry at the trial stage. Finding the case fell within the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court allowed the bail application, directing the petitioners' release upon furnishing bail bonds.
- Does the attribution of the effective role of firing to a co-accused justify granting bail to other accused persons?
- When does a case qualify for 'further inquiry' under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the applicability of Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 a matter to be determined at the trial stage rather than at the bail stage?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---The petitioners, brothers inter se, have been arrested in case F.I.R.
No,24 dated 2-3-2006, under sections 324/34, P.P.C., Police Station, Takht Nasrati, District Karak. The petitioners have been refused the concession of bail by the forums below, by orders dated 7-3- 2006 and 16-3-2006, respectively. They have approached this Court with similar prayer and in support of the bail application, it is mainly contended that there is absolutely nothing on the file, which could connect the petitioners with commission of crime and they have been charged falsely on mere suspicion. As against that, it is submitted by learned Deputy Advocate-General, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that prosecution is in possession of sufficient evidence to implicate the petitioners with the crime in question and bail plea of the petitioners has been rejected for sound and cogent reasons.
2. No doubt, it is true that the petitioners stand directly nominated in the promptly lodged report but it is equally true that the effective role of firing, resulting into injuries to complainant Waqar Ahmad, is attributed to Muhammad Rehman, father of the petitioners. The question regarding applicability of section 34, P.P.C. Shall be determined at the trial after recording evidence. Without going deep into the merits of the case, I find that case of the petitioners is open to further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The application is allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail provided each one of them furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa Judicial Magistrate, who shall see that the sureties are local and men of means.
Cited by 1 case
- FAIZ UL WAHAB vs THE STATE and another 2011 MLD 1352