SHER ALI Versus State
The petitioner, Sher Ali, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.231 registered under sections 302/324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after his bail application was dismissed by the lower courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased to facilitate the main accused, was entitled to further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given his age, the sudden nature of the occurrence, and variance in witness statements. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner's role required further probe and inquiry, particularly when co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail in precedents. The court laid down the principle that at the bail stage, deep appreciation of evidence is unwarranted, and where reasonable grounds appear for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused assigned a holding role without motive, bail should be granted tentatively pending trial.
- Whether an accused assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased to facilitate a co-accused is entitled to post-arrest bail for further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted when there is variance in prosecution witness statements regarding the place of occurrence?
- Does the absence of blood recovery from the crime scene support the grant of bail at the pre-trial stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
KHALID MAHMOOD, J.-- -Petitioner Sher Ali seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.231 dated 18-8-2012 under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. Police Station Garhi Habibullah as he has been declined such relief by the Courts below.
2. As per contents of F.I.R., the complainant charged the accused petitioner for catching hold of the deceased for facilitating the co-accused Gul Zareen, who stabbed the deceased in his chest.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that accused petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in the case with mala fide intention for catching hold of the deceased. It was argued that the occurrence took place suddenly and presence of accused petitioner, as shown by the complainant, is fabricated and house of petitioner is allegedly situated at a distance of half furlong from the place of occurrence. It was argued that investigation in the case is complete and petitioner is no more required by the local police for investigation purposes.
4. On the other hand learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition and contended that petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. with specific role and it was the accused petitioner, who facilitated the co-accused to stab the deceased on the chest. It was argued that the complainant, eye-witnesses and medical report supported the prosecution version.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. The occurrence took place at the spur of moment and no motive has been advanced in the F.I.R. The house of accused petitioner is situated at a distance of half furlong from the place of occurrence and P.Ws. Muhammad Sadiq and Parvez are found at variance regarding place of occurrence. Accused petitioner has been assigned role of catching hold of deceased whereas co-accused Gul Zareen is charged for stabbing the chhurri blow on the chest of the deceased. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner is aged 62 years and catching hold for facilitating his son for giving blow that too on chest of the deceased requires further probe and enquiry. It was also pointed out by the defence counsel that no blood has been recovered from the alleged place of occurrence, which transpires from the site plan and got strengthened from the statement of said P.Ws. At bail stage deep appreciation of evidence is unwarranted as the same may prejudice the mind of the trial Court. However, wisdom can be drawn from the cases of Muhammad Akhtar v. State (1995 SCMR 310), Shaukat v. State (1994 SCMR 393) and Ali Shah v. State (2002 PCr.LJ 707). In the above noted cases co-accused charged for catching hold of injured were allowed bail. Prima facie guilt of petitioner needs further inquiry and pending such inquiry he deserves to be released on bail.
7. Consequently, this bail petition is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rs.Five lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means. The observations given by this Court are tentative in nature, trial Court should not be influenced by the same.
MWA/392/P Bail granted.