Qamar Yasin vs The State, etc
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Qamar Yasin, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased and whose presence at the crime scene was the only allegation, was entitled to bail despite a period of abscondance. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case against him required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the fatal injury was attributed solely to a co-accused, and the petitioner's vicarious liability remained a matter for the Trial Court to determine after evidence. The key principle laid down is that while abscondance may be a factor in bail decisions, it is a matter of propriety; when confronted with an accused's legal right to bail in a case requiring further inquiry, the right to bail must prevail over considerations of propriety.
- Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right when the case requires further inquiry into their guilt?
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of the crime, without an overt act, constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground of abscondance when the case otherwise merits bail?
- Does the question of propriety regarding an accused's abscondance override the legal right to bail in a case of further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' JAMES JOSEPH, J. --- Petitioner Qamar Yasin seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 717/2013, dated 20.10.2013 under Sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at P.S. Basti Malook District Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Is that on the day of occurrence when son of the complainant Muhammad Ismail went out of the house they heard a fire shot. The complainant alongwith PWs went out and saw Faiz Rasool son of Fayyaz Ahmad who was armed with pistol 30 bore made a fire upon Muhammad Ismail which landed on his chest, whereas petitioner alongwith Amjad son of Ghulam Murtaza and three un-known persons were also present at the place of occurrence.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Admittedly there is no allegation against the petitioner for causing any injury to the deceased or any other PW. The sole injury on the person of the deceased is undeniably attributed to one Faiz Rasool son of Fayyaz Ahmad. Mere presence of the petitioner is alleged at the relevant time and place of occurrence. Whether the petitioner is vicariously liable for the act done by his co-accused would be adjudged by the Trial Court after recording of evidence. Although the petitioner remained absconder for some time but mere abscondance is no ground for refusing the bail if the same is otherwise made out. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest. Investigation qua the petitioner is complete. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has frankly conceded that the petitioner is previously non-convict and there is no record against the petitioner. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars for an indefinite period. Reliance is placed on 2011 SCM R 902 and case titled as "Ikram-ul-Haq v. Raja Naveed Sabir and others' (2012 SCM R 1273) wherein their lordship has been pleased to hold as follows:--- "We have, however, remained unable to subscribe to this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner because the law is by now settled that in a case calling for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused persons bail is to be allowed to him as a matter of right and not by way of grace or concession. Bail is sometimes refused to an accused person on account of his absconsion but such refusal of bail proceeds primarily upon a question of propriety. It goes without saying that whenever a question of propriety is confronted with a question of right the latter must prevail."
5. For the reasons recorded above the matter to the extent of petitioner has become one of further inquiry as contemplated under Section 497(2) of Cr.P.C. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount each to the satisfaction of Trial Court.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the observations made supra are tentative in nature. Bail after arrest granted.