Riaz Akhtar and another vs The State and another
This is a criminal petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 whereby the petitioners, Riaz Akhtar and Muhammad Hanif, sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 384/2015 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Wah, District Rawalpindi. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail given the lack of specific injury attribution and the applicability of further inquiry under Section 497(2). The Lahore High Court held that since no injuries were attributed to the petitioners and their vicarious liability and common intention required determination after recording evidence, their case fell within the purview of further inquiry. The court established the key principle that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused who is otherwise entitled to it on merits, and accordingly allowed the petition.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when no specific injury is attributed to the accused?
- Does the mere heinousness of an offence serve as a ground to refuse bail?
- When does a criminal case qualify as one of further inquiry 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 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. Riaz Akhtar and Muhammad Hanif petitioners have sought bail after arrest in case FIR No.384/2015 dated 29.09.2015 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149 PPC, Police Station Saddar Wah, District Rawalpindi.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and only tentative assessment is required at this stage. The allegation against the petitioners as per FIR is that they alongwith their co-accused were following the deceased. Later on Riaz Akhtar petitioner alongwith Iftikhar alias Kharu and Qamar Zaman co-accused encircled the deceased, but there is no allegation of encircling the deceased against Muhammad Hanif petitioner . It has been noticed that no injury whatsoever is attributed to the petitioners on the persons of Tahir Mehmood deceased and Allama Zahee r alias Sadheer injured as the same has been attributed to George co-accused, therefore, the questions of sharing common intention by the petitioners with their co-accused as well as their vicarious liability in the commission of alleged occurrence shall be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. In this regard, reliance can be placed on 1996 SCMR 1125. Admittedly , the petitioners are previous non-convict. They are behind the bars since 13.10.2015 without any fruitful progress in their trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioners are no more required for further investigation. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to refuse the concession of bail to the accused, who otherw ise become entitled for that on the merits of case. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioners becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub- section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only .