TALIB JAN vs THE STATE and another
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Peshawar High Court judgment denying bail to the petitioner, who was charged under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in an F.I.R. regarding a murder case. The petitioner, accused of commanding his co-accused son, argued that his involvement was exaggerated to implicate family elders and that his continued presence in the village was consistent with innocence. Conversely, the State contended that the petitioner's role as a commander constituted abetment, disentitling him to bail. The Supreme Court observed that the role assigned to the petitioner required further inquiry, particularly regarding whether the command attributed to him was merely ornamental or amounted to substantive abetment, and whether his presence in the village despite the F.I.R. suggested innocence. Holding that these factors tilted the scales of justice in favor of bail, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does the attribution of a command role to an elder family member in an F.I.R. constitute a ground for further inquiry in bail proceedings?
- Is the continued presence of an accused in their village, despite being named in an F.I.R., a factor consistent with innocence for the purpose of bail?
- Whether the role of commanding a co-accused who fired the effective shot is sufficient to deny bail to the alleged commander?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal arises out of judgment dated 23-9-2011 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby the petitioner in a case registered against him and another under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No.431 dated 10-8-2011 in the Police Station of Sadder District Bann, was declined bail.
2. Teamed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the role of commanding the co-accused attributed to the petitioner appears to be a result of exaggeration which is customary in this part of the country to rope in even elders of the family so that he may not be at large to pursue the litigation. He next contended that the stay of the petitioner in the village despite being named in the F.I.R., appears to be more consistent with his innocence rather than guilt, therefore, his case becomes arguable for the purpose of bail.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant argued that when the tragedy In this case appears to have been enacted by the absconding co-accused on the command of the petitioner, his role would be that of an abettor, by all means, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of bail.
4. We have gone through the relevant record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. . Two persons are charged in the F.I.R. Petitioner is charged for commanding his son while the latter, who has gone into hiding, has been charged for firing effective shot at the deceased.
Whether the role assigned to the petitioner is a result of exaggeration which, more often than not, is resorted to in this part of the country to rope in even elder of the family so that he may not be at large to pursue the litigation; whether stay of the petitioner in the village despite being named in the F.I.R. Could be held to be more consistent with his innocence rather than guilt when his son charged for the effective shot has gone into hiding after the occurrence and whether the role of commanding attributed to a person who himself is armed with a Kalashnikov could be held to be ornamental or at par with abetment, as is contended by the learned counsel for the State, are the questions calling for further inquiry and thus tilt the scales of justice in favor of bail rather than jail.
6. We thus convert this petition into appeal,. Allow the same and direct the release of the appellant on bail if he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 (rupees five laces only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court who is to ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. .