MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus THE STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Muhammad Yousaf, who was charged under Sections 302 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with the murder of his daughter-in-law. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not present at the scene of the crime and was declared innocent during the police investigation, was entitled to bail despite being named in the First Information Report for allegedly conspiring with his son to commit the murder. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, reasoning that his absence from the scene and the police finding of innocence created a situation requiring further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the Court granted the bail petition, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not present at the scene of the crime and has been found innocent during the investigation, the case falls under the scope of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, necessitating further inquiry and justifying the grant of bail.
- Does a finding of innocence by the police during the investigation entitle an accused to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused charged with conspiracy under Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be granted bail if they were not present at the scene of the crime?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Yousaf, the petitioner through the instant petition seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.1.R. No. 186 dated 11‑5‑2003, under sections 302/109, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Saddar Renalakhurd District Okara.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 11‑5‑2003 at about 1‑30 a.m. Shaukat Ali, the son of the petitioner had committed the Qatl‑e‑Amd of his wife Mst. Safia Bibi as a result of conspiracy with him (petitioner).
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that the evidence fabricated by the police of his having conspired with his son to do away with the deceased is absolutely not believable as no father normally would instigate his son to commit the murder of his daughter‑in‑law; that even otherwise, the offence of Qatl‑e‑Amd of the deceased was not in consequence of the alleged conspiracy hatched up by him with his son; that during the investigation he has been found innocent by the police; and that he is behind the bars and previous non‑convict. In support of bail plea reliance has be placed upon the case of Muhammad Sharif v. State 2001 YLR Lahore 2619.
4. Conversely, the learned State counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F. I. R. ; and that he has hatched up conspiracy with his son to do away with his daughter‑in‑law and so he sufficiently is connected with the crime.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. Allegedly, fie along, with his son has hatched up conspiracy to do away with wife of his son.
He admittedly was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence. He during the investigation was found innocent being the allegation levelled against him to be (sic). Hence it is yet to be seen that if he ultimately can be held liable for the alleged offence or not. Hence his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into his guilt. In this regard reference can also be made to the case of Muhammad Sharif v. State 2001 YLR Lahore 2619. In these circumstances, the case for his enlargement on bail has been made.
7. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑2264/L Bail granted.