Muhammad Ejaz vs The State and another
This petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was nominated in an FIR involving offences under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was present at the scene but allegedly empty-handed and attributed no specific injury to the victims, was entitled to bail. The Court held that since no specific role was attributed to the petitioner and the injuries were caused by co-accused, the case fell under the category of further inquiry as per Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was a first-time offender, investigation was complete, and incarceration served no useful purpose. The key principle laid down is that the mere heinousness of an offence is not a sufficient ground to refuse bail to an accused who otherwise qualifies for the concession of post-arrest bail, especially when the question of common intention requires further trial inquiry.
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without an attributed specific role or injury, warrant the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the heinous nature of an offence a sufficient ground to deny bail to an accused who is otherwise entitled to it?
- When does a criminal case qualify for the concession of bail under the category of further inquiry?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, 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.83/2014 dated 20.08.2014 under sections 302, 324, 34 PPC, registered at Police Station Lawa, District Chakwal.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record has 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 although petitioner is nominated in FIR yet no role whatsoever has been attributed to him and only allegation against him is that he was present at the spot empty handed at the time of occurrence alongwith his co-accused. The petitioner has not caused any injury to Hamid Hussain deceased as well as Mst. Ghulam Fatima injured and the injuries to these persons are specifically attributed to Muhammad Asif and Zafar Iqbal co-accused. In these eventualities, question of sharing common intention by the petitione r with his co-accused shall be determined by the learned trial court at an appropriate stage. The petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He is behind the bars since 20.12.2015. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation, therefore, his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. I may observe here that mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused, who otherwise becomes entitled to the concession of post arrest 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 bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one 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.