Naseem Abbas vs The State and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner Naseem Abbas sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 581/15 registered under Sections 302, 397, 148, 149, 427, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest when investigation reveals his non-presence at the scene, establishing a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2). The court held that the divergence between the FIR allegations and investigation findings created a case of two versions, making the matter one of further inquiry. Furthermore, consistency with co-accused whose pre-arrest bail was confirmed, lack of previous convictions, and completion of the investigation justified granting bail. The court laid down the principle that mere heinousness of an offense does not warrant refusing bail when an accused otherwise establishes a case for it, and police investigation findings can be considered tentatively during bail adjudication.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when investigation reveals his absence from the crime scene?
- Does a contradiction between the FIR and the outcome of the police investigation bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the heinousness of the offense when the accused otherwise qualifies for the concession?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when co-accused facing similar allegations have been granted pre-arrest bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Naseem Abbas has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.581/15 dated 02.08.2015 under sections 302, 397, 148, 149, 427, 109 PPC, registered at Police Station City Hafizabad, District Hafizabad.
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 deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. As per FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that when a motorcycle being driven by co-accused Nasir and Nauman armed with Kalashnikov and Ghulam Dastgeer armed with automatic weapons were sitting behind him, cross the car and came in front of the car bearing No. LEH-1428 being driven by Qaisar Abbas alongwith Afzaal Ahmad and Faisal Ali, another car Vitz came from behind and petitioner Naseem Abbas alongwith other co-accused Haroon Abbas, Tariq, and Yasir came out from the said car whereas co-accused Qaisar armed with Kalashnikov , Arsalan alias Babloo armed with automatic weapon alighted from a Vigo-Dala and started firing at the car of deceased whereas Arsalan, Yasir and Haroon co-accused also made firing at Qaisar hitting upon different parts of his body , thereafter the co-accused who were on motorcycle made firing, due to their firing all the persons present in the car sustained injuries. During investigation, it has come on record that the petitioner was not present at the spot and nothing was recovered from his possession. Although, opinion of the police is not binding on the Courts of law, yet the same can be taken into consideration while deciding bail applications, therefore, by keeping into view the contents of FIR and the outcome of investigation, prima facie the case of the prosecution against the petitioner has become a case of two versions i.e. one put forward by the complainant and the other came on record during investigation and which version is correct shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. Reliance can easily be placed upon case law titled as Ehsan Ullah vs. The State (2012 SCMR 1137). Pre-arrest bail of co-accused namely Adnan Arshad and Imran Arshad who have been involved in this case as abettors has already been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 28.04.2016, therefore, petitioner also deserve concession of bail on the ground of consistency . Admittedly , the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 29.11.2015. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Mere heinousness of of fence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who otherwise becomes entitled for this concession.
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.2,00,000/- (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.