Shahid. vs The State, etc.
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Shahid, who was charged under Sections 376(2) and 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in relation to an FIR registered in 2014. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, whose presence at the crime scene was alleged but who was not attributed any specific overt act regarding the commission of the offence, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting the absence of incriminating evidence such as DNA results or recoveries linked to him. The Court emphasized that the petitioner's vicarious liability remained a matter for trial determination and that his continued detention was not justified. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is merely alleged to be present at the scene without specific overt acts, and the prosecution fails to provide immediate incriminating evidence, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail regardless of the trial's commencement.
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without specific overt acts, constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the commencement of a trial a valid ground for the refusal of bail if the accused has otherwise made out a case for further inquiry?
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the basis of being a nominated accused in an FIR when no incriminating evidence is available against them?
- Section 376(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Shahid, the accused-petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.214-2014 dated 14.06.2014, registered under Sections 376(2) & 302 PPC, at P.S. Civil Line, District D.G. Khan.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that during the midnight of 13/14.06.2014 he along with his co-accused Hafiz Kamal was present at the place of scene at the time of occurrence, while main accused Faisal Iqbal was committing zina-bil-jabar with Mst. Yasmin, daughter of the complainant, who (victim) was smeared with blood lying there unconscious. She was escorted to DHQ Hospital, where she was verified to her death.
3. Arguments heard and record perused with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
4. Although, the petitioner is nominated accused of the FIR yet no overt act qua the allegation of zina has been attributed to him, but only presence of the petitioner has been established at the spot during the investigation.
In this regard reliance can be placed in a case reported as "Rasool Bakhsh. Vs. The State" (2003 P.Cr.L.J. Lahore, 119). Moreover, no incriminating evidence is available on record against the petitioner regarding DNA test, rape and no recovery has been affected at the instance of present petitioner.
5. Trial has been commenced and five witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and only private witnesses are yet to be examined. The next date of trial is fixed for 15.09.2015. Reliance is placed reported as "Nisar Ahmed. Vs. The State and others" (2014 SCM R 27) & "Syed Khalid Hussain Shah. Vs. The State and another" (2014 SCM R 12), wherein it has been held that commencement of trial is no ground for refusal of bail at any stage, if accused succeeds to make out a case of further inquiry.
6. The petitioner has been languishing in jail since 14.06.2014. The corpus of present petitioner is no more required to the police for further investigation. The vicarious liability of accused-petitioner and the role played by him would be determined at the time of trial after collecting the material evidence and as such accused-petitioner can not be detained in custody for indefinite period as per law laid down by Superior Court in case reported as "Muhammad Ashfaq. Vs. The State"(2008 P.Cr.L.J. Lah. 159). In such circumstances, the case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry which also comes within the ambit of Section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C.
7. The upshot of my above said discussion is that this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.