ABDUL REHMAN vs THE STATE and anothers
This matter arises from a petition filed by Abdul Rehman seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 165 registered under sections 302 and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sarai Mughal, District Kasur. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when nominated in the F.I.R. without immediate connecting evidence, and where previous enmity cuts both ways. The Lahore High Court held that notwithstanding the petitioner's nomination in the F.I.R., the absence of recovery, the lack of immediate connecting evidence, and the nature of the motive as a double-edged weapon bring the case prima facie within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that previous enmity serves as a double-edged weapon supporting both potential motive and false implication, and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused nominated in an F.I.R. for murder is entitled to post-arrest bail when no recovery is made during physical remand?
- Does previous enmity between parties constitute a double-edged weapon for the purpose of bail?
- When does a criminal case fall within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Petitioner Abdul Rehman seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,165 dated 22-6-2011 under sections 302 and 148/149 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sarai Mughal District Kasur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the F.I.R. Does not disclose any evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime in any manner whatsoever; that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case only on the basis of suspicion of the complainant that cannot be considered as legal evidence. Further contends that the petitioner remained on physical remand for fourteen days but nothing was recovered from him; that the deceased was involved in many murder cases and he might have been murdered by one of his other enemies.
3. On the other hand learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant while opposing this bail application contends that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With the specific role that the petitioner along with his co-accused committed murder of the deceased with their respective weapons; that the complainant while appearing before the learned trial court has categorically stated that she herself has seen the occurrence and she is the eye- witness of the same; that in the statement of the complainant before the learned trial court there is direct allegation against the petitioner. Further contends that the version of the complainant is fully corroborated by the medical evidence available on the record; that there is a strong motive in the shape of previous criminal litigation between the parties; that the case against the petitioner is at evidence stage, therefore, bail should not be granted to the petitioner to avoid any possible prejudice to either side. Reliance is placed upon 2006 SCM R 1265.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Although the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. Yet there is no evidence at all connecting him with the alleged crime. According to the F.I.R. Itself the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the house of co-accused Ameer Hamza alias Khari but nothing is mentioned that how the petitioner is involved in this occurrence. The petitioner also remained in physical custody of the police for fourteen days but nothing was recovered from him. The motive in the shape of previous enmity is a double edged weapon, if prima facie, it can be the reason for the murder of the deceased it can also be the cause for false implication of the petitioner in this case. In view of the above, case against the petitioner, prima facie, falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And is one of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations given herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.