Maher Shahbaz vs The State etc
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 256/18 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Haji Pura, District Sialkot. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner, to whom a lalkara was attributed and whose co-accused was stated by the complainant to have been nominated due to misunderstanding, is entitled to post-arrest bail under the principle of further inquiry. The Court held that sufficient grounds existed to bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting the complainant's statement exonerating the main accused, the absence of recoveries from the petitioner, police opinion regarding absence from the scene, and delayed trial proceedings. The Court accordingly admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where the primary accused is exonerated by the complainant and the role attributed to the petitioner requires further evaluation during trial, the case warrants the concession of bail.
- Whether the attribution of a proverbial lalkara warrants further probe into the guilt of an accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the exoneration of a main co-accused by the complainant through a statement provide sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail to a co-accused?
- Whether the absence of any recovery from the petitioner during investigation entitles them to post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through the instant petition the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.256/18 dated 03.03.2018 registered u/s 302/34, PPC, at P .S. Haji Pura, District Sialkot.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioner as per contents of FIR is that the deceased Muhammad Ikram, who was working with Maher Shahbaz, the petitioner, told his brother on the day of occurrence at about 02:00p.m. that he is not having good terms with Mehar Shahbaz, the petitioner and asked his brother, the complainant to go to the dera of Maher Shahbaz in the evening and took him back at home as he does not want to work with Mehar Shahbaz. At about 07:00p.m., in the evening, the complainant along with witnesses were coming from the dera of Mehar Shahbaz on motorcycle and when reached near TCS Office, they saw the petitioner's car and he while coming out of the car was asking Al-Maroof Booba s/o Maqbool alias Bola Bangali co-accused along with unknown person, who was on motorcycle that Ikram should be done to death, upon which the co-accused Booba made fire-shots with his pistol, which hit the brother of the complainant, who was sitting on front seat of the car, he became injured and fell down out of the car. The petitioner and other accused fled-away from the scene of occurrence.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Record transpired that though the petitioner is nominated in the instant crime report, but the role attributed to him is a proverbial lalkara upon the co-accused Booba, who fired different shots with his pistol, which hit the deceased on his body . The crux of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, complainant while appearing before the learned Addl. Sess ions Judge, Sialkot himself exonerated the main accused, namely , Al - Maroof Booba s/o Maqbool alias Bola Bangali from the alleged crime by making statement on 19.12.2018, in which he categorically stated that he has nominated the above said co-accused due to misunderstanding. The petitioner was arrested in the instant case on 27.09.2018 and during the course of investigat ion, nothing was recovered from his possession and the police has opined that the petitioner was not present at the crime scene at the time of occurrence. The report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 has already been submitted before the learned Trial Court on 30.09.2018 and since then there is no progress in the trial. The petitioner is behind the bar since his arrest and his further incarceration for indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose for the prosecution. As far as section 34, PPC is concerned, it is the learned Trial Court, who would decide the question of common intention while appreciating the evidence adduced before it by both the sides.
5. In view of the above, this Court found that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the case of the petitioner called further probe into his guilt within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
6. Under the circumstances, this petition is allowed, and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.