Aftab Ahmad vs The State and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising from an FIR registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not named in the FIR and was alleged to have played a facilitating role without causing injury, was entitled to bail, particularly given that co-accused with identical roles had already been acquitted. The 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 the determination of common intention and vicarious liability is a matter for the trial court after evidence is recorded, and that the petitioner’s continued incarceration served no useful purpose, especially as he was a previous non-convict and the investigation was complete. The key principle laid down is that the acquittal of co-accused with similar roles and the absence of specific injury attribution provide sufficient grounds for bail, even where absconsion is alleged.
- Does the acquittal of co-accused with identical roles entitle a petitioner to the grant of bail?
- Is the question of common intention and vicarious liability to be determined at the bail stage or by the trial court?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground of absconsion if the accused is otherwise entitled to bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.317/2008 dated 31.10.2008 under sections 302, 34 PPC, registered at Police Station Saddar Chakwal.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record of this case has also been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is not named in FIR. He has been involved in the instant case by the complainant through supplementary statem ent with the role of facilitating main accus ed to commit murder of Rafaqat Mehmood deceased. During investigation, it has come on record that though the petitioner was present at the spot at the time of occurrence, but he was empty handed and admittedly he did not cause any injury to the deceased. It is also an admitted fact that Mukhtar Ahmad and Shehzada Khan, co-accused, whose role is quite identical to that of the present petitioner have already been acquitted by the learned trial court. Even otherwise, it is settled law that questions of sharing common intention and vicarious liability of the accused shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. Reliance can be placed upon 2014 SCMR 1502. The petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 30.10.2015. Investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere absconsion is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise the accused becomes entitled to the grant of bail.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub- section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petitio n is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.