NASEER AHMED and another vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous petition seeks post-arrest bail for the petitioners involved in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to bail on the grounds of consistency with a co-accused who was already granted bail, being attributed only a lalkara while empty-handed, and the existence of a cross-version making the matter one of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners stand on a better footing than the co-accused, noting that the initial investigation supported a cross-version and injuries on the person of one petitioner were suppressed in the first information report. The court laid down the principle that suppression of injuries on an accused can be considered for the limited purpose of bail, and questions of aggressor and vicarious liability are to be determined during trial, thereby granting post-arrest bail to the petitioners.
- Whether an accused attributed only a lalkara while empty-handed is entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail?
- Can the suppression of injuries on the person of an accused be considered at the bail stage?
- Does the existence of a conflicting police investigation regarding a cross-version make a case one of further inquiry under criminal law?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioners alongwith others are involved in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Sillanwali District Sargodha vide F.I.R. No,107 of 1998 dated 30-3-1998. The report was lodged by Maqbool Ahmad son of Abdul Ghani for the murder of one Abdul Ghafoor.
2. It is contended that bail application of Muhammad Rashid (Criminal Miscellaneous No,1180-B of 1999) was accepted by this Court vide order dated 20-4-1999 and he was admitted to bail; that the case of the petitioners is not distinguishable from the case of aforesaid Rashid; that both the petitioners were empty-handed and attributed lalkara only; that no overt act was attributed to them although fatal fire was attributed to Tanvir Ahmad, who is the principal accused in this case; that petitioner Saeed Ahmad also sustained 5 injuries, which were suppressed in the F.I.R.; that investigation conducted initialy by two police officials lead to the conclusion that it was a case of cross-version. However, the 3rd investigation conducted by a senior police officer held the accused party as aggressor and thereupon report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted against all the accused. Lastly it was contended that it is a case of further inquiry as the question of aggressor or aggressed is yet to be determined and that keeping in view the principle of consistency the petitioners are entitled to bail as their role is not distinguishable from Rashid accused.
3. The learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail petition on the ground that trouble in this case had started due to an altercation and exchange of abuses between the petitioner Saeed Ahmad and the deceased Abdul Ghafoor, which ultimately led to the unfortunate murder and as such the aforesaid Saeed Ahmad was the main character in the occurrence. It was also contended that possibility of injuries having been manipulated later on could not be ruled out as medical examination of the injured accused Saeed was conducted about 6 days after the occurrence; that vicarious liability of the petitioners would extend with the liability of principal accused Tanvir Ahmad who had made fatal fire at the chest of the deceased. As such allegedly there was no case for bail.
4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the petitioners case stand at better footing than the case of Rashid who has been admitted to bail by this Court. Both the petitioners were empty-handed and were attributed proverbial lalkara whereas Tanvir Ahmad was the principal accused for firing fatal shot at the deceased. The plea of cross-version was initially accepted by two Investigating Officers, which would make it a case of further inquiry. Suppression of injuries on the person of petitioner Saeed Ahmad can also be taken into consideration for the limited purpose of bail without making deeper appreciation' about the merits of the case. The questions of aggressor or aggressed and vicarious liability are yet wide open, and would be determined on the basis of evidence recorded during the trial.
5. In view of the foregoing observations, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bails in the sum of Rs, one lac each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.