INAM ABBAS vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning allegations of murder and attempted murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner accompanied a co-accused to the victim's house, where the murder occurred, and that a cycle was subsequently recovered at the petitioner's pointation. The petitioner argued that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R., no eye-witnesses existed, and the petitioner was implicated only through a supplementary statement without any specific overt act or motive attributed to him. The State opposed the bail, citing the recovery of the cycle. The Court observed that the petitioner was not nominated in the initial F.I.R., no overt act was attributed to him, and the allegation was limited to his presence at the scene. Noting that the investigation was complete and the challan submitted, the Court held that the question of vicarious liability required trial determination and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner.
- Whether an accused person can be granted bail when they were not nominated in the initial F.I.R. and no specific overt act is attributed to them?
- Does the recovery of an item at the pointation of an accused, without an overt act, constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Is the question of vicarious liability a matter to be determined at the bail stage or during the trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.---Petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,28 of 2005 dated 25-1-2005 registered under sections 302/ 324/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per prosecution story is that he along with Amir co-accused went to the house of victim with pre-meditation where his co-accused committed the murder of Zulfiqar and later on at his pointation the cycle which they had taken from the house of deceased was recovered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is un-explained delay of 17/18 hours in lodging the F.I.R.; that there was no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence; that co-accused Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad 'Hussain alias Allah Ditta have been exonerated by the complainant and the petitioner Implicated through supplementary statement. No overt act is attributed to the petitioner nor any motive has been attributed to him.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the bail and submits that specific role has been attributed to him and recovery of cycle has been effected from his possession.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. It appears from the perusal of F.I.R. That petitioner is not nominated therein and he was, later on involved, even then no overt act has been attributed to him and allegation against him is only of presence at the spot.
The question of vicarious liability will be determined during the trial. Petitioner is behind the bars since 24-4-2005. Investigation in the case is complete, challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of trial on 17-5-2005.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus State 2010 PCrLJ 1868