UMED ALI vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case registered under sections 302, 365, 452, and 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of murder, abduction, and house trespass. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicant, who was alleged to be present at the scene of the crime but to whom no specific overt act was attributed, was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, determining that the case against him required further inquiry. The Court observed that while the prosecution alleged the applicant participated in the abduction of the victim, there was no material on record to substantiate this contention. Relying on the principle that an accused cannot be denied bail where no specific role or overt act is assigned to them despite their alleged presence at the scene, the Court admitted the applicant to bail subject to the furnishing of solvent surety and a personal bond. The decision underscores the necessity of evidentiary material to justify the continued detention of an accused.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no specific overt act is attributed to them despite their alleged presence at the crime scene?
- Does the absence of material to substantiate allegations against an accused constitute a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD TASNIM, J.---In this bail application, applicant is booked in Crime No,97 of 2009 registered with P.S.W.J. Shah, under sections 302, 365, 452 & 395, P.P.C.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant says that the only allegation against the applicant is that he was present at the scene, but no overt act has been attributed to the applicant. In the circumstances, learned counsel prays that the applicant be admitted to bail and in support of his contention he relies upon a case of Wariyam v. The State (2006 PCr.LJ 1611), wherein in the similar circumstances, learned Single Judge of this Court had admitted the applicant in the reported case on bail as no role whatsoever was assigned to that accused though he was present at the scene of offence.
3. ' Learned D.P.-G. Says that no doubt no overt act has been attributed to the applicant but he along with other co-accused had abducted Muhammad Arab with a view to kill him but there is no material available on record to substantiate the above contention.
4. ' In my view it is a case of further enquiry in terms of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And following the judgment, quoted above, I admit the applicant to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) and execution of personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
5. ' Bail application stands disposed of accordingly.