Abdul Rehman vs The State etc.
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal petition filed by Abdul Rehman seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 337 dated 14.08.2014, registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Kahuta, District Rawalpindi. The core legal question concerns the entitlement to post-arrest bail of an accused charged with conspiracy and abetment who was not present at the scene of the crime. The court held that the case of an alleged conspirator or abettor not present at the spot stands on a lower footing than that of an accused present at the scene, and that false implication in cases of conspiracy between inimical parties is a strong possibility. The court determined that the petitioner's case falls within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that investigation was finalized and physical custody was no longer required. Consequently, the petition was accepted and the petitioner admitted to bail.
- Whether an accused charged with conspiracy and abetment who was not present at the crime scene is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the case of a conspirator not present at the spot stand on a lower footing than an instigator present at the spot?
- When can a case be considered one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through this petition, Abdul Rehman petitioner/accused has sought his post arrest bail in case FIR No.337 dated 14.08.2014 for offences under sections 302/324, 148/149, 109 PPC registered at P.S. Kahuta, district Rawalpindi.
2. Different charges including murder have been reported in the above said FIR and the role attributed to the present petitioner is that he allegedly conspired with his accomplices for the commission of the offence.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, complainant as well as the learned ADPP and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.
4. The petitioner / accused was neither present at the time of occurrence nor he actively participated in the commission of the crime. Hence, there is no allegation that he fired at the deceased or any prosecution witness at the time of occurrence. It is settled law that vicarious liability of the accused is to be determined by the learned trial Court. The case of conspirator or abettor not present on the spot stands at the lower footing than the accused instigating his companions to commit crime being himself present on the spot.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court has educatively held in case reported as Syed Amanullah Shah Vs The State and other (PLD 1996 SC 241) as under:- "The allegation of Lalkara usually leveled against an accused instigating his companions to kill someone is frequently made in our country, but the Courts on the tentative assessment of the evidence about the allegation of Lalkara, grant bail to the accused allegedly raising Lalkara or instigating their companions to commit the crime, with almost equal frequently. If bail can be granted to a person present at the spot at the time of occurrence instigating his companions to kill someone present there, then why a person who was not present on the spot but allegedly instigated the accused to kill the deceased should be deprived of such concession during the trial.
There can be no two opinions that the case of a conspirator or abettor not present on the spot stands at lower footing than the case of the accused instigating his companion to commit the crime being himself present on the spot. Furthermore, it is very easy to set up accusation of abetment/instigation/conspiracy/Iema; needless to say when parties are inimically dispressed, the possibility of false implication of opponent is very much there".
6. The investigation of this case qua the petitioner/accused has already been finalized and his physical custody is not required at this stage for the purpose of investigation. Challan has already been submitted before the Learned Trial Court wherein only the charge has been framed so far.
The petitioner is 60 years old. In the circumstances of this case mentioned above, I found the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C
7. For the reasons mentioned above, this bail petition is accepted and the petitioner/accused namely Abdul Rehman is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Thousands) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
8. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition.