Khayal Din 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, wherein the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 152/14 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kalabagh, District Mianwali. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was attributed only ineffective firing and whose weapon recovery conflicted with ballistic evidence, is entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial. The court held that the case falls within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting the absence of specific fatal injury attribution, lack of crime empties matching the recovered weapon, and the prolonged incarceration without trial progress. The petition was accordingly allowed and post-arrest bail granted, laying down that mere heinousness of an offence does not disentitle an accused to bail when the case otherwise falls for further inquiry.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when only the role of ineffective firing is attributed to the accused?
- Does the mere heinousness of an offence serve as sufficient ground to refuse bail to an otherwise entitled accused?
- Whether a case falls under further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when no crime empties are recovered to match the weapon allegedly seized from the accused?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), 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.152/14 dated 24.08.2014 under sections 302, 34 PPC, registered at Police Station Kalabagh, District Mianwali.
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 only tentative assessment is required at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that although petitioner is named in FIR yet no specific role has been attributed to him and only the role of ineffective firing is attributed to him therein. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased and same is specifically attributed to co-accused Anwar Din, so the questions of vicarious liability of the petitioner and sharing common intention by him with his co-accused for committing murder of the deceased shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. Reliance can be placed on the case of "Mumtaz Hussain vs. The State" (1996 SCMR 1125). As far as the allegation of ineffective firing is concerned, allegedly the petitioner was armed with Kalashnikov at the time of occurrence, whereas a 303-bore rifle was recovered from the petitioner during the course of investigation. Even otherwise, it is admitted position of the case that no crime empty has been collected by the investigating officer during spot inspection and in this eventuality, the value of recovery of 303-bore rifle allegedly effected from the petitioner shall be assessed by learned trial court at an appropriate stage. Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict. He is behind the bars since 23.03.2017 without any fruitful progress in conclusion of his trial. 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 offence is no ground to refuse bail to the accused, who other 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 petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.