ABDUL KHALIQ Versus State
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Abdul Khaliq in respect of offences under sections 302 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered vide F.I.R. No. 415 at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu, District Khanewal. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, who was not present at the spot and is only charged with abetment supported by statements of closely related prosecution witnesses recorded after a delay and without initial mention in the F.I.R., makes out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of the petitioner from the scene of the crime, the delayed and interested nature of the statements regarding instigation, and the requirement of further inquiry into his guilt entitle him to bail. The key principle laid down is that where an allegation of abetment rests on statements of related witnesses recorded belatedly and lacking initial corroboration, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether a petitioner accused of abetment who was not present at the spot is entitled to post-arrest bail when statements regarding instigation are delayed and made by related witnesses?
- Does an allegation of abetment without supporting evidence in the F.I.R. constitute a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Whether bail should be granted when the credibility of witnesses alleging instigation requires further consideration at trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.--- Abdul Khaliq petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.415, dated 11-11-2006 registered at Police Station Saddar Mian Channu, Distt. Khanewal in respect of offences under sections 302/109, P.P.C.
2. Precisely the prosecution story as unfurled in the F.I.R. lodged at the instance of Allah Ditta complainant is that Sajjad Hussain accused had shortened the life of Asghar Ali deceased by inflicting a Chhurri blow. Motive behind the occurrence was stated to be a dispute qua the land which was going on between the parties since 4/5 years. Besides the said motive it was stated by the complainant that sister of Sajjad Hussain accused had been engaged to Asghar Ali deceased but later on Sajjad's father had agreed to give the hand of her said daughter to the petitioner's son. Thereupon Asghar Ali deceased had manoeuvred the lodging of the said lady in Darul Aman. According to the complainant Sajjad Hussain accused had murdered his son on the instigation of the petitioner.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that admittedly the petitioner had not actively participated in the occurrence and only allegation against, him is that of abetment whereas in the F.I.R. no evidence of abetment was referred to. To strengthen his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of Syed Amanuilah Shah v. The State and another PLD 1996 SC 241, Sabir and others v. The State 2000 CrL.J 530 and Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 2007 MLD 882.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.
5. Heard. Record perused. It has been straightaway noticed that though the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. yet only the allegation levelled against him is that of instigation. Admittedly he was not present at the spot at the relevant time and therefore, he had not actively participated in the occurrence. Allegation of abetment was levelled without referring to any evidence of abetment in F.I.R. The record reveals that after the registration of the case statements of Talib Hussain and Muhammad Yasin P. Ws. were recorded to show that Abdul Khaliq petitioner had instigated the main accused right in their presence to murder the deceased. Admittedly, both the said witnesses are closely related to the deceased. Talib Hussain is statedly nephew while Muhammad Yasin is cousin of the complainant. According to the said witnesses they had heard the petitioner while instigating the main accused two days before the occurrence but interestingly in their own wisdom they did not think it proper to disclose this fact to the complainant or the deceased before the murder of Asghar Ali. Besides this it would be a question of further consideration as to whether the petitioner was so fool enough to declare his intention to kill the person in presence of someone related to the, deceased. Above mentioned aspects of the case would be needing further inquiry into the alleged guilt of the petitioner entitling him to bail. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
6. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./A-227/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE STATE and another 2008 YLR 2890(2)