MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs STATE and another
This is a petition for post-arrest bail filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in connection with FIR No. 533/16, involving charges under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not present at the scene of the crime and was only alleged to have abetted the offence, was entitled to the concession of bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the petitioner was not present at the spot, had not taken an active part in the incident, and that there was a possibility of mala fide involvement due to a pre-existing grudge. The Court affirmed the principle that the mere heinousness of an offence is not a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to the concession, especially when investigation is complete and trial progress is stagnant.
- Does the mere heinousness of an offence constitute a sufficient ground to refuse bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it?
- Can an accused who was not present at the scene of the crime and is alleged only to have abetted the offence be granted bail?
- Does the existence of a prior grudge between the parties raise a possibility of mala fide involvement sufficient to warrant further inquiry for bail purposes?
- Section 497, 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
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No, 533/16 dated 14.12.2016 under Sections 302,. 324, 148, 149, 109, PPC, registered at Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal.
2. 2.The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record of this case 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 named in FIR, yet the fact remains that only the allegation of abetting his co-accused to commit murder of Manzoor Ahmad deceased has been leveled against him. It is admitted position of the case that the petitioner was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence and he did not take active part in the incident. During arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a. copy of private complaint filed under Sections 302, 324, 460, 365, 148, 149, PPC against the complainant party and the petitioner has been shown therein as eye-witness of the occurrence, therefore, possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that the petitioner has been involved by, . the complainant in this case with mala fide intention and ulterior motive by spreading the net wide due to the above grudge. Admittedly. the petitioner is previous non-convict; he is behind the bars since 16.12.2016 without any fruitful progress towards the conclusion of his trial; investigation to his extent is complete and he is no more required for further investigation. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground to _ refuse bail if otherwise the accused becomes entitled to the concession of bail, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by .keeping the petitioner behind the bars at this stage.
3. 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 bond in the sum of Rs, 500,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand only with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
4. 4.The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.