MUHAMMAD BILAL AHMAD vs STATE and another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a criminal petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in FIR No. 214 registered at Police Station Sadar Depalpur, District Okara, after lower fora denied him bail. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, charged with abetment and absent from the scene of the crime, is entitled to post-arrest bail when the investigating agency has not collected connecting evidence. The court held that since the petitioner was charged with abetment, was not present at the scene, and no confessional statement was made, his case called for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and directed the release of the petitioner on bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is charged with abetment without presence at the scene and lacking direct connecting evidence, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused charged with abetment and not present at the scene of the occurrence is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of connecting evidence collected by the investigating agency warrant the grant of bail under further inquiry?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal can be converted into an appeal and allowed when the lower fora improperly denied bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Ejaz Afzal Khan, J.--Petitioner who is charged in a case registered against him and others under Sections 302,109,148 &. 149 PPC vide FIR No, 214 dated 29.3.2014 at PS Sadar Depalpur, District Okara, when failed to get the concession of bail from the lower fora sought the indulgence of this Court mainly on the ground that no evidence worth the name has been collected so far by the Investigating Agency as could reasonably connect him with the crime.
2. Learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by the learned ASC for the complainant contended that the evidence in this behalf could not be collected because both the co-accused have gone into hiding.
3. We have gone through the record carefully, and have , considered the submissions made by learned ASCs for the petitioner, the complainant and learned Law Officer at the Bar.
4. A look at the FIR would reveal that the petitioner has been charged for abetment. Admittedly he was not present at the scene of occurrence. Neither he nor any of his co-accused made any confessional statement before the Magistrate spelling out any such role. How, when and where did he commit the crime of abetment is a question calling for further inquiry.
5. For the reasons discussed above, we convert this petition into appeal, allow it and direct the release of petitioner on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 500,000/- with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.