Abdul Rehman vs The State, etc
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Abdul Rehman, who was charged under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Kahuta. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to be a conspirator but was not present at the scene of the crime and did not actively participate in the commission of the offence, was entitled to the concession of bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that since the petitioner was not present at the spot and his physical custody was no longer required for investigation, he was entitled to bail. The judgment established the principle that a conspirator or abettor not present at the scene of the crime stands on a lower footing than an accused who is present and instigating the crime, and thus, should not be denied bail.
- Whether an accused person alleged to be a conspirator but not present at the scene of the crime is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the case of a conspirator not present at the crime scene stand on a lower footing than an accused present at the scene instigating the crime?
- When does a case against an accused fall within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- 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
ORDER
' MASUD ABID NAQVI, J. --- Through this petition, Abdul Rehman petitioner/accused has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 337, dated 14.08.2014 for offences under Sections 302/324, 148/149, 109, P.P.C. Registered at P.S. Kahuta, District Rawalpindi.
2. Different charges including murder have been reported in the above-said F.I.R. 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 v. The State and other (PLD 1996 SC 241) as under:- "The allegation of Lalkara usually levelled 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/conspirecy/lema; 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 sub-section (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 Thousand) 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. Bail after arrest granted.