Sher Ali vs The State And Another
This criminal petition concerns the bail application of an accused charged under Sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for allegedly facilitating a co-accused by catching hold of the deceased during a fatal stabbing incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was assigned the role of 'catching hold' of the deceased, was entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case and the nature of his alleged involvement. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, reasoning that the case required further inquiry. Key factors influencing this decision included the absence of a motive, the petitioner's advanced age of 62, discrepancies in witness statements regarding the place of occurrence, and the lack of blood recovery at the crime scene. Relying on established precedents where co-accused charged with similar roles were granted relief, the Court determined that the petitioner's guilt necessitated further investigation. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, with the caveat that these observations were tentative and should not prejudice the trial.
- Is an accused charged with the role of 'catching hold' of a deceased entitled to bail when the case requires further inquiry?
- Does the absence of blood recovery at the crime scene constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Can the advanced age of an accused be a relevant factor in determining entitlement to bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
JUDGMENT KHALID MEHMOOD, J. - Petitioner Sher Ali seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No. 231, dated 18.08,2012 under Sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Police Station Garhi Habibullah, as he has been declined such relief by the Courts below.
2. As per contents of F.I.R., the complainant charged the accused petitioner for catching hold of the deceased for facilitating the co-accused, Gul Zareen, who stabbed the deceased in his chest.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that accused petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in the case with mala fide intention for catching hold of the deceased. It was argued that the occurrence took place suddenly and presence of accused petitioner, as shown by the complainant, is fabricated and house of petitioner is allegedly situated at a distance of half furlong from the place of occurrence. It was argued that investigation in the case is complete and petitioner is no more required by the local police for investigation purposes.
4. On-the other hand learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition and contended that petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. With specific role and it was the. Accused petitioner, who facilitated the co- accused to stab the deceased on the chest. It was argued that the complainant, eye-witnesses and medical report supported the prosecution version.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. The occurrence took place at the spur of moment and no motive has been advanced in the F.I.R.
The house of accused petitioner is situated at a distance of half furlong from the place of occurrence and PWs Muhammad Sadiq and Parvez are found at variance regarding place of occurrence. Accused petitioner has been assigned role of catching hold of deceased whereas co- accused. Gul Zareen is charged for stabbing the Churri blow on the chest of the deceased, It is also, admitted fact that the petitioner is aged 62 years and catching hold for facilitating his son for giving blow that too on chest of the deceased requires further probe and enquiry. It was also pointed out by the defence counsel that no blood has been recovered from the alleged place of occurrence, which transpires from the site plan and got strengthen from the statement of said PWs.
At bail stage deep appreciation of evidence is unwarranted as the same may prejudice the mind of the Trial Court. However, wisdom can be drawn from the cases of Muhammad Akhtar v. State (1995 SCM R 310), Shoukat v. State (1994 SCM R 393) and All Shah v. State (2002 P.Cr.L.J. "707). In the above-noted cases co-accused charged for catching hold of injured were allowed bail. Prima facie guilt of petitioner needs further inquiry and pending such inquiry he deserves to be released on bail.
11. Consequently, this bail petition is allowed and if is directed that accused petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000,000/- (Rupees Five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. The observations given by this Court are tentative in nature, Trial Court should not be influenced by the same.