Ghulam Akbar vs The State
This post-arrest bail application was filed before the High Court of Sindh under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, after the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad, refused to grant bail to the applicant. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused in furtherance of common intention, committed Qatl-i-amd of two individuals and attempted to murder a third person by causing firearm injuries. The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated due to prior enmity over landed property and that the only role attributed to him in the commission of the offence was that of instigation. The court considered the arguments and perused the record, noting that the only role attributed to the applicant was instigation, which brought his involvement within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing a surety bond and personal bond.
- Whether an accused who is attributed only the role of instigation in a murder case is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Whether false implication based on prior enmity over landed property coupled with a secondary role of instigation justifies the grant of bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C.?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Irshad Ali Shah J. It is alleged that the applicant with rest of the culprit in furtherance of their common intention not only committed Qatl-i-amd of Mst. Shami m Akhtar and Suhail Aitbar by causing them fire shot injuries but caused fire shot injuries to PW Sufiyan Ali with intention to commit his murder , for that present case was registered.
2. The applicant on having been refused post arrest bail by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad has sought for the same from this court by way of making instant application under section 497 Cr.P.C.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy its enmity with him over landed property and the role attributed to the applicant in commission of incident is only to the extent of instigation. In support of his contention he relied upon case of Wazir Muhammad vs the State ( 1978 SCMR 448 ).
4. Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that he has actively participated in commission of incident.
5. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
6. The role attributed to the applicant in commission of incident is only to the instigation therefore, his involvement in commission of incident obviously is calling for further enquiry .
7. In view of above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in sum of Rs.200,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court.
8. The instant bail application is disposed of accordingly .