KHAYAL DIN vs STATE and another
This is a criminal petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, whereby the petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was attributed the role of ineffective firing and whose weapon recovered did not match the crime empties, made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The Lahore High Court held that since no specific role or injury was attributed to the petitioner, the question of vicarious liability and common intention required further inquiry, rendering the case one for bail. The court laid down the principle that mere heinousness of an offence is no ground to refuse bail to an accused otherwise entitled to it, particularly where delayed trial and lack of corroborative recovery bring the case within the scope of further inquiry.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is attributed only ineffective firing without causing any injury to the deceased?
- Does a discrepancy between the weapon allegedly carried and the weapon recovered, coupled with the absence of crime empties, make a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused solely on the ground of the heinousness of the offence when the accused is otherwise entitled to the concession?
- Whether long incarceration without fruitful progress in the trial justifies the grant of post-arrest bail?
- 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
ORDER
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 assessm ent is required at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that although petitioner is named in FIR yet no specific role hat 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 SCM R 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.