MARATAB ALI vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from FIR No. 252 dated 17-7-1996 at Police Station Mochiwala, District Jhang. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not present at the spot of the murder and was only implicated for a prior criminal conspiracy allegedly witnessed by close relatives who failed to report it promptly, made out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court held that the role ascribed to the petitioner regarding the conspiracy lacked logical plausibility and that the unreported nature of the incident involving related witnesses brought the case within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the court accepted the application and granted bail to the petitioner subject to surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that delayed reporting of an alleged conspiracy by related witnesses, coupled with the absence of the accused from the scene of the crime, makes the matter one of further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused not present at the spot of the crime and implicated solely for conspiracy is entitled to post-arrest bail when the conspiracy witnesses are related and delayed in reporting?
- Does the lack of immediate reporting of an alleged conspiracy by eyewitnesses make the case one of further inquiry under criminal law?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered with Police Station Mochiwala, District Jhang for offences under section 302/109/148/149, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,252, dated 17-7-1996. The case was got registered by Nasir Abbas with the allegation that on 16-7-1996 first informant with his father Dilawar Khan came to the house of one Ahmad Khan to enquire about the health as he was not well. In his house, Muhammad Khan and Ahmad Hayat were also there. All of them slept at night. In the middle of night, first informant got up to make water and saw co-accused of the petitioner armed with guns present near the cot of first informant. Aurangzeb raised Lalkara and fired hitting first informant's father. It was followed by Hakam Khan accused who also fired hitting injured, as a consequence of which he died at the spot. According to the F.I.R, on 12-7-1996 in the evening, first informant was told by Muhammad Anwar and Allah Baldish that they were passing near the Dhari of Hakam when Aurangzeb, Zulfiqar, Aslam, Ghulam Abbas and Muratab Ali, petitioner with Nusrat were sitting at the Dhari. Muratab Ali and Nusrat were saying that Dilawar had taken their Lambardari, therefore, he should be eliminated.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not present at the spot. He did not participate in the occurrence at all. The only allegation against him is that he hatched a conspiracy on 12-7-1996 for the murder of Dilawar Khan which took place on 16-7-1996.
Contends that at no stage any of the witnesses informed the authorities nor the deceased took any step for his protection. Submits that an effort has been made to involve the entire male members of the family. Contentions were opposed by the learned counsel for the State as well counsel for the complainant.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. As one of the assailants present at the spot. The role ascribed to him was of conspiracy which alleged to have been taken place on 12-7-1996, yet no effort was made to inform the authorities regarding the same. The manner in which the alleged conspiracy is alleged to have been committed does not appeal to reason. The witnesses of conspiracy who were passing by the Dhari could not have possibly heard the same being hatched inside the house in such details without being spotted. Both the witnesses of conspiracy are close relations of the deceased which fact also makes it a case of further inquiry. In these circumstances, while relying upon PLD 1996 SC 241, application is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail provided furnishes security in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Judicial/Duty Magistrate, Jhang.
Bail-allowed.
Cited by 4 cases
- KHALID ZAMAN KIYANI vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 545
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR GURAYA vs Raja MUHAMMAD IRSHAD and another 2005 YLR 1220
- Malik MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs Syed ABID HUSSAIN SHAH and 9 others 2000 P Cr. L J 1171
- KABEER vs THE STATE 1998 P Cr. L J 1311