ABDUL GHAFOOR and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two accused individuals, Abdul Ghafoor and Muhammad Ajmal, who were implicated in a criminal case involving the death of one person and injuries to another. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the specific allegations and their respective ages. The court examined the evidence, noting that while the petitioners were allegedly present at the scene, no specific overt acts were attributed to them, nor were any recoveries effected from their possession. The court observed that Abdul Ghafoor was elderly and Muhammad Ajmal was a minor, and that the parties were closely related. Holding that the petitioners' involvement required further inquiry, the court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution fails to attribute specific overt acts to an accused, despite their presence at the crime scene, and where the case otherwise falls under the ambit of further inquiry, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail under the relevant statutory provisions.
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without an attributed overt act, constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no specific injury or recovery is attributed to them during the police investigation?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this bail petition, contends that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been involved in this case; that petitioner Abdul Ghafoor is about 74 years of age while petitioner Muhammad Ajmal is of about 14 years age; that no injury is attributed to them; that no recovery was effected from them; that according to the police investigation, although they were found to be present at the spot but no overt act has been attributed to them; that the case of the petitioners is one of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. And that the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail by this. Court.
2. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant assisted by Mr. Naseeruddin Khan Nayyar, the learned Additional Prosecutor General, while.-appearing on behalf of the State, submits that both the petitioners are named; that two sons of petitioner Abdul Ghafoor, namely, Shaukat and Liaqat are involved, who, on his commanding Lakara has done Tasneem deceased to death and caused injuries to Yasmin who has become disable; that petitioner Ajmal was also present at the spot; that the petitioners along with their co-accused, in furtherance of their common object, has committed the offence and that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail from this Court.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have given consideration to the submissions made at the bar and have also gone through the record.
4. In the instant case there is one deceased, named, Tasneem while one injured, namely, Yasim.
According to the photostat copy of identity Card of Abdul Ghafoor his date of birth is of 1933. He is the father of co-accused Shaukat and Liaqat. No injury is attributed to him, no recovery was effected from him and although, according to the police investigation, he was present at the spot but no overt act is attributed to him, both the parties are closely related to each other, so, case of Abdul Ghafoor is one of further inquiry falling in subsection (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. So far as case of Ajmal petitioner is concerned, according to the school leaving certificate produced before this Court, his date of birth is of 1993, no overt act is attributed to him, no recovery has been effected from him, he is son of Liaqat co-accused and grand-son of petitioner Abdul Ghafoor, so, his case is also one of further inquiry. In the afore-referred circumstances, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.