SHAH BAIG vs The STATE And Another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 17/16 registered under sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-F(v), 337-F(vi), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the heinous nature of the alleged offences, given the existence of conflicting versions of the incident and the lack of incriminating recoveries. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, determining that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the injury attributed to the petitioner was not the cause of death, the investigating officer had initially declared the petitioner innocent, and the delay in FIR registration suggested deliberation. The key principle laid down is that the mere heinousness of an offence is not a sufficient ground to refuse bail when the case warrants further inquiry, particularly when the investigation is complete, the accused is a previous non-convict, and trial conclusion is not imminent.
- Does the mere heinousness of an offence constitute sufficient grounds to refuse bail to an accused?
- When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the investigating officer has prepared a cancellation report despite the trial court's disagreement?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Shah Baig petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 17/16, dated 04.01.2016 registered at Police Station Rajana, Toba Tek Singh in respect of offences under sections 302/ 337-A(i)/337-F(v)/337-F(vi)/148/149, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties And going through the record it has been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of six days in registration of the FIR which has not been explained by the petitioner and the same fact prima facie shows that the FIR has been lodged by the petitioner with deliberations and consultations. Although a specific role of inflicting injury with iron rod on the right shoulder of deceased has been attributed to the petitioner yet the fact. remains that during the investigation of this case nothing has been recovered from the petitioner rather at one stage after finding the petitioner to be innocent the Investigating Officer has prepared a cancellation report but the same was disagreed by the learned trial court. Thus, all this shows that it is a case of two versions, one introduced by the complainant through the FIR And second introduced by the Investigating Officer during investigation and which version is correct, that would be seen at the time of trial by the learned trial court after appraising of evidence to be led by the parties. Reliance in this regard can easily be placed upon the case reported as 2012 SCM R 1137. Even otherwise the injury attributed to the petitioner on the top of right shoulder of deceased is not the cause of death And the same has been declared by the doctor to fall under section 337-L(2), P.P.C. which offence is bailable. The question of vicarious liability of the petitioner And his sharing common intention with his co-accused for the murder of deceased will be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence. At this juncture the petitioner has succeeded to bring his case within the ambit of further inquiry. Mere heinousness of offence is no ground for refusing bail to An accused. The petitioner is behind the bars since 29.01.2016, investigation of this case is complete, admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict, there is no chance of An early conclusion of petitioner's trial in near future, thus, his continuous incarceration would not serve Any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed And the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.