ABDULLAH KHAN vs ABDUL QAYYUM and another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to Abdul Qayyum respondent, who was implicated under sections 302 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly abetting a murder. The core legal question was whether bail was properly granted to a co-accused charged with abetment where his presence at the spot was not alleged, divergent investigation reports existed, and statements supporting the allegation of abetment were recorded belatedly. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercised its discretion properly in granting bail, noting that bail cannot be withheld solely on the basis of belated statements supporting abetment. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that bail will not be refused merely due to belated statements alleging abetment when the accused was found innocent in initial investigations and was not present at the scene of the crime.
- Whether bail can be withheld simply on the basis of statements supporting an allegation of abetment made at a very belated stage?
- Does the absence of the accused from the spot and conflicting police investigation reports constitute valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail?
- When can the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion exercised by the High Court in granting bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Abdullah Khan petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 15-2-1994 whereby Abdul Qayyum respondent was admitted to bail in a case registered against him and others under section 302/109 of the P.P.C.
2. The ease was registered on 16-6-1993 on the report of Mst. Haleema Khatoon wherein she alleged that on the said day she, her son Saif Ullah and ,their other relatives were going in a street when Abdul Gahfoor co-accused of the petitioner armed with a rifle confronted them and after raising a Lalkara fired at Saif Ullah deceased hitting his abdomen as a result of which he later on died.
' The motive for the occurrence was that aforesaid Abdul Ghafoor was having an evil eye on the grown-up daughters of the first informant, therefore, her husband and sons had forbidden him from visiting their house and had also given him beating. In the F.I.R. It was stated that the murder was committed at the instance of Abdul Qayyum petitioner herein.
3. The reasons which weighed with the High Court for granting bail to the petitioner were that he was not present at the spot nor there was any evidence to connect him with the commission of offence; he was found innocent by the S.H.O. During the investigation which was verified by the D.S.P.; he was not attributed any motive in the F.I.R. And in a subsequent investigation conducted by another D.S.P. He was found involved but there was no material to support.
4. Learned counsel of the petitioner contends that on 22-6-1993 (i.e six days after the occurrence) two persons namely Haq Nawaz Khan and Habib Ullah had appeared before the Investigation Officer and supported the allegation of abetment, therefore, the observation of the High Court that there was no evidence to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence is based on non- reading of evidence. He submits that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause therefore, it was not a fit case for the grant of bail.
5. The submission made by the learned counsel is without any substance. Bail cannot be withheld simply on the basis of statements supporting allegation of abetment made at a very belated stage. In allowing bail to the respondent the High Court has exercised the discretion in a proper manner, therefore, no interference with the impugned order is called for. Resultantly this petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- KHALID ZAMAN KIYANI vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 545
- Allama Syed SAJID ALI NAQVI vs STATE PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (Lahore) 506
- HAJI HUSSAIN Versus STATE 1997 MLD 3072