RAB NAWAZ vs The STATE and another
This matter arises from a bail petition filed by Rab Nawaz under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar, District Bhakkar. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on grounds of role attribution, lack of weapon use, and old age, given that he was specifically nominated in the FIR for raising a lalkara, chasing the deceased, and holding his legs while co-accused throttled him to death. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner actively participated in the continuous sequence of events leading to the murder, that the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that old age alone does not constitute a ground for bail without proof of physical infirmity. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether old age by itself is a sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Does catching hold of the deceased's legs during an assault constitute active participation attracting vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether a bail petition can be allowed when prima facie sufficient material connects the accused to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Petitioner Rab Nawaz has submitted an application under section 497,.
Cr.P.C. Praying for grant of bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 324 dated 14-6-2011 under sections 302/147/149, P.P.C. At Police Station, Sadar, District Bhakkar on the complaint of benighted Mst.
Hameeda, daughter of Madah Hussain, deceased.
2. Precisely the narrative of the accusations is that on 14-6-2011 at about 6-00 p.m., the complainant and her father Madah Hussain were grazing their buffalos in their field. In the meantime, Rab Nawaz (petitioner) along with his co-accused, Riaz Hussain, Ejaz Hussain, Aman Ullah and an unknown person came there. The petitioner raised a lalkara that the deceased be taught a lesson for returning the land and thereafter his said co-accused caught hold of her father (deceased) and started beating him through kicks and fists. The deceased after having released himself from their clutches in order to save his life, ran towards his house and when he covered a distance of about 60/62 Karams, the petitioner along with his co-accused by hot pursuit apprehended him and again started sloshing him, whereupon deceased Madah Hussain fell to the ground. Thereafter the petitioner caught hold of the deceased from his legs. Then his accomplices throttled the deceased, who died there and then.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no weapon has been used during the alleged commission of murder; simplicit lalkara has been attributed to the petitioner whereas the role that he caught hold of the deceased from his legs has not been substantiated from the postmortem report because no contusion, abrasion or any mark has been found by the doctor on the legs of the deceased, whereas the allegation of pressing the throat has not been levelled against him and he has been falsely involved on account of his kinship with his co-accused; more so, the petitioner, is octogenarian and it is open and secret that old age by itself brings an infirmity, in this way, the petitioner's case also falls within the exceptions of section 497, Cr.P.0 as well and all these circumstances, prima facie, make out a case in favour of the petitioner.
4. Learned DPP assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has venerably opposed the bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R; he is connected with the motive.
' The initiated the occurrence by raising a lalkra when the deceased was under attack, he got him released in order to save his life, then the petitioner along with his co-accused by chasing apprehended him, caused him injuries, as a result of which, he fell to the ground. Further submits that thereafter the petitioner clasped the deceased from his legs and provided an opportunity to his co-accused to throttle him, who did so and deceased died at the spot, in this way, the continuity of episodes till the death of the deceased, all these circumstances involve the petitioner and in this way, he has actively participated in the commission of crime and that he is not entitled, for the concession of bail on the ground that he made physical participation in the occurrence but even otherwise by virtue of sections 147 and 149, P.P.C., the petitioner is held responsible for the murder of the deceased. Learned counsel adds that during the investigation turban of the petitioner, fell on the ground at the time of occurrence has been taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and after the investigation, he has been found involved in the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And no iota of evidence has been brought on the record that the petitioner is sick or infirm, therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of bail.
5. Hearkened. Record scanned.
6. Textual study of the F.I.R. Throws up that the occurrence is pre-planned on account of motive mentioned in the F.I.R. The petitioner in fact led the entire incident. He along with his co-accused came at the spot immediately before beating to the deceased and he raised a lalkara and then the deceased was beaten up. The deceased by making himself released ran away from the spot.
Secondly, then the petitioner along with his co-accused followed him and slashed him, who fell down to the ground. Thereafter thirdly the petitioner caught hold the legs of the deceased so that he may not be got an opportunity to save his life and facilitated his co-accused to kill him, who throttled him to death. During the investigation, the petitioner has been found involved. The turban of the deceased has also been taken into possession by the police. The arguments raised at the bar hype up to go deep to the merits of the case but this exercise cannot be undertaken at this stage. Prima facie, sufficient material is available against the petitioner and he has been connected with the commission of crime alleged. The same falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Old age by itself is no ground for grant of bail. No evidence has been brought before the Court that the petitioner is'a feeble.
7. In these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of bail in his favour.
Thus, the instant petition king shorn of reasons is dismissed.