MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Ashraf, in connection with F.I.R. No. 30 of 2006, registered under sections 302, 440, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was alleged to have abetted the murder of the deceased, Muhammad Riaz, alongside co-accused Shafqat Mehmood. The prosecution relied on the testimony of witnesses who allegedly overheard the conspiracy. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as an alleged abettor not present at the scene of the crime, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court held that the prosecution's evidence regarding the conspiracy was unnatural and doubtful. Relying on established principles, the Court determined that the case of an abettor not present at the spot stands on a better footing than one present at the scene. Consequently, the Court found the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granted bail, noting the petitioner's prolonged incarceration without the submission of a challan.
- Is the case of an alleged abettor who was not present at the scene of the crime entitled to different treatment for bail purposes than an accused present at the spot?
- Does the prosecution's failure to submit a challan within a reasonable period justify the grant of bail?
- When does an allegation of conspiracy fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.--- Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.30 of 2006, dated 29-1-2006 for the offence under sections 302/440/109/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Aimandad, Gujranwala.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused Shafqat Mehmod had abetted their other co-accused find mention in the F.I.R. to commit the murder of Muhammad Riaz, who on the night falling in-between 28/29-1-2006 had accomplished the' mission within the area of village Hameedpur Khurd, Police Station, Aimandad, District Gujranwala.
During the investigation petitioner was arrested on 22-2-2006. Bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala 'vide order, dated 14-6-2006, hence this petition.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I have observed that the precise allegation against the petitioner is that at his instigation/abetment his co-accused had committed the murder Muhammad Riaz. The contents of the F.I.R. reveal that petitioner and his co-accused Shafqat Mehmood were heard by Basharat and Ghulam Murtaza P.Ws. while conspiring for the commission of this offence and the said witnesses had heard them when they were passing near the house of Shafqat co-accused.
Not only the mode and manner in which allegedly prosecution witnesses had heard the petitioner and his co-accused conspiring the commission of this offence is unnatural and doubtful, it is well-settled that the case of a conspirator or abettor not present at the spot is on the better footing than that of the accused instigating his companion to commit the crime being himself present at the spot and normally those accused are admitted to bail by the Courts on the principle of further inquiry (Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State and another PLD 1996 Supreme Court 241). In this view of the matter, case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry and falls within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Petitioner is behind the bars since 22-2-2006 and admittedly agency has not yet submitted challan. Further incarceration of the petitioner in the circumstances of the case would not serve any purpose. Accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds amount to Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of D.R. (Judicial) of this Court.
H.B.T./M-145/L Bail granted.
Cited by 2 cases
- ALI SHER and others vs The STATE 2016 P Cr. L J 627
- ABDUL KHALIQ Versus State 2008 YLR 715