MEHMOOD AZAM vs STATE etc.
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Mehmood Azam, who was charged under Sections 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged abetment in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not present at the scene of the crime and whose alleged involvement was based on a vague charge of conspiracy, was entitled to bail despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that because the FIR lacked specific details regarding the time, place, and manner of the alleged conspiracy, and because the petitioner was admittedly absent from the crime scene, the case against him required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case relies on an allegation of conspiracy that lacks specific evidentiary details in the FIR, and the accused was not present at the scene of the occurrence, the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, justifying the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the FIR lacks specific details regarding the alleged conspiracy or abetment?
- Does the absence of an accused from the scene of the crime, when charged with conspiracy, constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted in a case falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the prosecution's case requires further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Mehmood Azam petitioner has sought post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No, 476 dated 20.9.2010 under Sections 302/109 PPC at PS. Fortabbas, Distt. Bahawalnagar on the statement of Muhammad Saleem.
2. With a narrow compass, prosecution case set up by the complainant Muhammad Saleem in FIR is that Muhammad Amer son-in-law of the complainant had come to his house in order to take his bride alongwith him but ultimately fuss created there, upon which said Muhammad Amer made straight fire shots with his .30 bore pistol hitting Muhammad Asif who after sustaining injuries fell on the ground and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. It has further been alleged in the FIR that Muhammad Amer co-accomplice of the petitioner has caused the death of deceased on the abetment/conspiracy of Mehmood Azam petitioner.
3. Petitioner was arrested in this case on 25.11.2010 and thereafter his post arrest bail was declined by the learned trial Court. Hence, this bail application.
4. In support of this bail application, it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that no detail of the alleged conspiracy/abetment has been mentioned in the FIR by the complainant viz: (i) place of conspiracy: (ii) date and time of conspiracy and (iii) PWs who allegedly over heard the same as well as source by which the complainant got its knowledge. Further argued that during investigation in this respect statements of two, persons namely Muhammad Rafique and Haroon Ahmad who were closely related to the complainant have been recorded on 20.9.2010 and they have falsely made their statements against the petitioner. At the conclusion of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per prosecution's own case, petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and it is always considered a case of a person who has not been found present at the place of occurrence on better footing than that of person who actually participated in the commission of crime. Further submitted that in the circumstances of the case, petitioner is entitled for grant of post arrest bail.
5. Learned DPG after having scanned the record produced by ASI has argued that FIR was lodged with promptitude and therein although reference of conspiracy has been mentioned but the same has been supplemented by the statements of Muhammad Rafique and Haroon Ahmad PWs recorded on 20.9.2010. Prima facie sufficient evidence is available against the petitioner and the offence with which he has been charged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of Cr.P.C., withal bail may be dismissed.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. As per stance of the complainant, petitioner was not present in the scene of crime. No detail of the alleged allegation of conspiracy/ abetment/embitterment has been mentioned in the FIR However, later on statements of two PWs have been recorded by the I.O. and it would be seen by the learned trial Court after recording prosecution evidence whether conspiracy was actually hatched up by the petitioner with his co-accused or not because of lack of ingredients constituting element of conspiracy/abetment. In these circumstances, prima facie case of the petitioner squarely comes within the mischief of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C., therefore, instant application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.