NIHAL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the order of the III-Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, which had rejected the applicant's bail request in connection with Crime No. 5 of 2006. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was alleged to have instigated an attack but was unarmed and not accused of causing direct injury, was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail. The Court observed that the applicant was unarmed and his role was limited to instigation, distinguishing this case from others where the accused were armed or directly involved in the commission of the offence. Finding that the applicant's case for bail was stronger than precedents where bail had been granted to instigators, the Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The Court reaffirmed the principle that where an accused is alleged to have merely instigated an offence without being armed or causing direct injury, such circumstances constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail pending trial.
- Is an accused person who is alleged to have only instigated an offence, without being armed or causing direct injury, entitled to the grant of bail?
- Does the absence of a specific role of causing injury or being armed entitle an accused to bail in a case of attempted murder?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD ATHAR SAEED, J.--- This bail application under section 497, Cr.P.C. Has been filed against the order dated 25-7-2006 by the III-Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu in respect of Crime No,5 of 2006 registered in Police Station Mounder District Dadu on 19-5-2006 whereby he had rejected the bail application of the applicant.
2. ' The brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Are that the applicant along with six other persons attacked the complainant and his nephew and in which the other accused on the instigation of the applicant fired on the complainant and his nephew and also assaulted them with iron bars and blunt side of hatchet. In the F.I.R. It is mentioned that the applicant was unarmed and the only role assigned to him was instigation. I had while granting bail in Criminal Bail Application No,S-487 of 2006 by my order dated 28-8-2006 held as under:-- "I respectfully subscribe to the above judgments and I am of the view that bail cannot be denied to the applicant as his role in the murder of the deceased was just that of instigator and prima facie it appears that he was armed with unloaded stengun and there is no charge on him of firing with intention to kill.
3. The case of the applicant is stronger as in that case, the applicant was armed with stengun and a murder had been committed as a result of instigation whereas in this case the applicant was unarmed and the F.I.R. Has been registered for attempt to murder, I am, therefore, of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to bail.
4. ' Foregoing are the reasons for which I had admitted the applicant A to bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand) along with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court by my short order, dated 4-9-2006.
Cited by 1 case
- MUNEER HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 1793