Waqas Ali vs The State and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of offences under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the contradictory statements during the investigation regarding his role and the findings of the Joint Investigation Team. The court held that the case against the petitioner falls within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that he was not attributed any injury to the deceased or the injured constable according to the investigation, and his continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose. The court established the key principles that tentative assessment is permissible at the bail stage, mere heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail when an accused otherwise qualifies, and the evidentiary value of disputed recoveries and vicarious liability are matters to be determined by the trial court after recording evidence.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail when a joint investigation team finds him to have been merely present at the scene without causing any injury to the victim?
- Does the mere heinousness of an offence constitute sufficient ground to refuse bail to an otherwise deserving accused person?
- Can the evidentiary value of a weapon recovered from a vehicle already in police custody be definitively assessed at the bail stage?
- When does a criminal case call for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused person under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Waqas Ali petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 790/14, dated 20.11.2014 registered at Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore in respect of offences under sections 302/324/34, PPC read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is allowed at this stage. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the FIR is that he made two successive fires from his pistol and first fire landed at the chest of his own companion namely Sajid whereas the second fire made by him landed at the abdomen of Baber Sohail, Constable but during investigation of this case conducted by Joint Investigation Team the petitioner was merely present at the scene of crime and he has hurled abuses and given slaps to Baber Sohail, Constable. He has not caused any injury to the deceased or to Baber Sohail, Constable/injured victim. During investigation of this case Baber Sohail, Constable has also got recorded his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 25.11.2014 wherein he has categorically stated that the deceased Sajid has made fire from pistol which hit him on his abdomen and by exercising his right of self-defence he has also made fire at him which landed at his chest. The worth and evidentiary value of the alleged recovered pistol on 14.12.2014 on pointing out of the petitioner from the Jeep on which the petitioner and his co-accused were travelling at a time when the Jeep was already in police custody since 01.12.2014 and was parked in Police Station would be seen by the learned trial court at the time of trial after recording evidence in this case. Likewise, the vicarious liability of the petitioner is to be determined by the learned trial court after recording of evidence in this case. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused person who otherwise becomes entitled for the same relief. The investigation of this case qua the petitioner is complete, he is behind the bars since 25.11.2014, his person is not required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his continuous incarceration in jail would not serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
5. 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.
100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.