AFTAB AHMAD KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Aftab Ahmad Khan, who was charged in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry, given that he was not the person who inflicted the fatal injury and that the prosecution's case involved seven accused persons for a single injury. The petitioner argued that his role was similar to co-accused persons who had already been granted bail, while the State contended that the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. and that the other co-accused were found innocent during the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry because no specific injury was attributed to him, and the prosecution's narrative regarding the involvement of seven individuals for a single fatal injury appeared doubtful. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and granted bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's story regarding the specific role of an accused is doubtful, the case warrants further inquiry under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to bail when no specific fatal injury is attributed to them in a case involving multiple accused?
- Does the involvement of a large number of accused persons for a single injury constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution's story regarding the specific role of the accused is found to be doubtful?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' I had earlier dealt with Criminal Miscellaneous No, 6124/CB of 2000, application for cancellation of bail titled as Muzaffar Khan v. Ghulam Hussain etc.
2. Facts of the case are that the said two respondents namely Ghulam Hussain and Ikram Ullah alongwith present petitioner and one Saleem Ullah put the deceased on the ground after holding his arms and legs and thereafter, Aziz Ullah Khan caused dagger blow on the chest of the deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that role of the present petitioner is similar to that of Ghulam Hussain and Ikram Ullah, whose bail was not cancelled by this Court which was granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, that petitioner is behind the bars for the last 5-1/2 months? That challan has not been submitted in the trial Court and that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., that as far as, Ghulam Hussain and Ikram Ullah are concerned, they were found innocent by the police during the course of investigation, that case of the present petitioner is totally different to that of Ghulam Hussain and Ikram Ullah and that law of consistency is not applicable in this case.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Ghulam Hussain and Ikram Ullah whose bail was not cancelled by this Court were accused of abetment/conspiracy. Both Ghulam Hussain and Ikram Ullah co-accused of the present petitioner were found innocent by the police during the course of investigation, it means that story of the prosecution is doubtful. The main point in this case is that there is only one injury on the person of the deceased which was specifically attributed to Aziz Ullah co-accused of the present petitioner. As far as, present petitioner is covered, no injury was attributed to him. The only allegation against the present petitioner is that he alongwith three others took the deceased from his arms and legs and threw him on the ground, thereafter, Aziz Ullah caused him fatal injury with dagger. The role of the present petitioner needs further inquiry in view of th fact, that for only-one injury: seven persons have been involved in this case, five accused allegedly present at the spot and two accused of abetment and conspiracy. Case of the present petitioner is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another vs THE STATE 2002 P Cr. L J 1645