Ghulam Abbas vs The State and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under sections 302, 427, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, involving a fatal vehicular incident. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, who was a passenger in a vehicle driven by a co-accused that struck and killed the deceased, can be held criminally liable for murder and granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, finding that his mere presence as a passenger does not establish common intention or mens rea to commit murder. The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to provide cogent reasons connecting the petitioner to the alleged crime at this tentative stage. Furthermore, the petitioner's status as a first-time offender and the completion of the investigation supported the grant of relief. The key principle laid down is that the mere fact of being a passenger in a vehicle involved in an occurrence does not automatically establish criminal culpability for murder without evidence of shared intent or instigation, warranting further inquiry into guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does mere presence as a passenger in a vehicle involved in a fatal accident establish common intention for murder?
- When does a case against an accused person fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted to an accused in a heinous offence if the investigation is complete and the accused is a first-time offender?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Ghulam Abbas petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 118/15, dated 31.01.2015 registered at Police Station Harbanspura, Lahore in respect of offences under sections 302/427/34, PPC read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism act, 1997.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case it has been noticed by this Court that this is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has been introduced in this case through a supplementary statement got recorded by the complainant on 11.02.2015, i.e. after 11 days of the occurrence. During a test identification parade the petitioner was allegedly picked up by the prosecution witnesses who have recognized him as the person sitting on front seat with the driver and admittedly the petitioner was not driving the car which is in the name of his father. According to the investigating officer the car was driven by his co-accused when it struck Shahid Ali, PO/862 who died. If the petitioner is sitting on front seat with the driver then obviously the situations allegedly created at the scene of crime at relevant time are beyond his control because had the petitioner was driving the car the circumstances of this case qua his culpability would be different.
We may observe here that mere factum of sitting in a car which was driven by anybody else and was struck with the deceased does not by itself connect the petitioner with the commission of murder rather the prosecution has to establish cogent reasons to believe that before taking place of occurrence the petitioner had common intention or mense rea to kill the deceased. Although according to the allegation the number plat of care was found forged yet the fact remains that the car, allegedly used in the occurrence, is registered at present in the name of petitioner's father without any element of forgery. The question whether the driver has committed the alleged crime at the instigation of the petitioner sitting alongwith him on front seat or the occurrence is result of an act and omission of driver would be resolve by the learned trial court at an appropriate stage after recording evidence in this case. Mere involvement of the petitioner in heinous offence does not prohibits the Court of law to extend its discretionary relief in his favour when otherwise a good case for post-arrest bail is made out from the attending circumstances of the case. The petitioner is previous non-convict, not involved in any criminal case, he is behind the bars since 11.02.2015, the investigation of this case qua the petitioner is complete, thus, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It may not be out of place to point out here that an ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can be repair by the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of bail granted to him but no satisfactory reprisal can be offered to an innocent person for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of case if he is acquitted in the long run.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.
200,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. Before parting with this order it is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the same are strictly confined to the disposal of this petition. The learned trial court shall decide the case on its own merits and without being prejudice from the above mentioned observations.