FAIZ AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Faiz Ahmad in connection with FIR No. 494 of 2000 registered under sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station City, Arifwala. The core legal question concerns whether reasonable grounds exist to believe that the petitioner shared a common intention with the co-accused in the commission of the alleged murder and attempted murder. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner, a rickshaw driver, had no motive, was merely hired to transport the co-accused, and there was no evidence showing he was aware of their intentions or shared a common intention. The court decided to admit the petitioner to bail. The key principle laid down is that where the involvement of an accused person in an alleged crime requires further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, particularly regarding the absence of common intention and motive, post-arrest bail ought to be granted.
- Whether a rickshaw driver who transported armed accused can be said to share a common intention without evidence of prior knowledge?
- Does the absence of motive and the need for further probe into an accused's complicity justify grant of bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Faiz Ahmad son of Noor Ahmad, petitioner, has sought his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No, 494 of 2000, dated 30-12-2000 under sections 302/324/109/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station City, Arifwala.
2. According to the F.I.R. Three persons, who were armed with fire-arm weapons hired the Rickshaw of the petitioner and followed the Rickshaw in which the deceased alongwith complainant and 2/3 women were travelling.
3. The role assigned to the petitioner is that he struck his Rickshaw with the Rickshaw in which the complainant party was travelling and thereupon the accused, who were armed with fire-arm weapons fired at them. The firing of the co-accused resulted into death of Mubarak and Naveed Ahmad complainant received injuries.
4. The petitioner- was arrested on 12-1-2001 and investigation against him has been completed.
Challan of the case has been sent to the Court for trial.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. It has been noticed that Faiz Ahmad petitioner had no motive whatsoever to share common intention with the co-accused. The only allegation against him is that the accused were A sitting in his Rickshaw.
Admittedly, the accused/petitioner is a Rickshaw driver and earns his living through this profession.
There is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that the petitioner was aware of the desires of the other co-accused or shared common intention. The allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. For what has been discussed above, I am inclined to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, fifty thousand with two sureties each in