ABDUR RAZAQ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Abdur Razaq, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of being present at the scene of the occurrence, armed with a deadly weapon, alongside other co-accused who allegedly committed multiple murders. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not alleged to have performed any overt act of firing, was entitled to bail despite his presence at the scene and his nomination in the First Information Report. The Court held that since the petitioner did not participate in the actual firing that resulted in the deaths and injuries, his culpability based on mere presence required further scrutiny during the trial. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, ruling that his case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The key principle established is that mere presence at the scene of a crime, without evidence of an overt act, may warrant the grant of bail pending further investigation and trial.
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime, without an overt act, entitle them to bail?
- When does a case qualify for 'further inquiry' under the law of bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail if they are nominated in the F.I.R. but not alleged to have fired a weapon?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Abdur Razaq seeks Pail in case F.I.R. No,64 of 2000, dated 29-1-2001 under sections 302/324/427/148/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Sadar, Sheikhupura.
2. ' The allegations contained in the F.1.R. Authored by Saeed Ahmad are that on the fateful day his father alongwith others boarded a car for attending the date of hearing in case registered against him and others when they were confronted with Muhammad Ehsan and 13 others companion and three unknown persons all armed with deadly weapons (fire-arms). Ehsan exhorted his `companions to kill Dilshad and others as they were responsible for killing his father Faqir Hussain on which Ehsan, Saeed Khan, Muhammad Nawaz, Yasir, Shafqat and Arshad fired with their respective weapons upon the car resulting in death of driver Abdul Ghaffar, Sarwar and Ashraf.
3. Later on Riaz injured also succumbed to the injuries leaving only Dilshad the injured eye-witness.
4. ' Post-arrest bail was declined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 5-12-2000. counsel ditlihdal)'that 'ilk petitioner was declared innocent by three investigations and on the insistence of the complainant final investigation left him at the mercy of Iheogeuxt.,/lpfurther gated that no overt act from bare reading of the F.I.R. Is ascribed to the petitioner exceptthisOfeience with the iaCettaed. Learited counsel contends thatin these eircumstancet bail be allowed to the petitioner particularly When the weapon of offence has not been tecovered ftottitint Conversely the learned counsel fctrAe,State hastppposed the bail and submitted that four persons were murder,e4.In,Gq1d blood, therefore, benefitof bail should not be extended to him. {{PAGE BLUR}} _t, t yqt;fil io ' rY,,T '; teamed counsel for the complainant Stated ttraf tile lietitioner is nontinatetr accused ='and was present at the Pride ot occurrence JA armed AVith deadPi- krn weapon, as such discret stlytud not be exercised in his favOur When the challan of the case has lie0 submitted in the Court.
5. ' Heard. Record perused. {{PAGE BLUR}} #TS##It is a fact that the petitioner though present at the time of occurrence did not participate in firing made by the above named persons as a result of which four persons were murdered and one was injured. As to how far mere presence of the petitioner can facilitate the other accused to kill the deceased shall be scrutinized and considered when the evidence comes before the trial Judge. Presently he has made out a case of further inquiry.
6. ' Resultantly the application is allowed and Abdur Razaq petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- NISHAN alias NISHO vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 310
- BADAM SHER vs MUHAMMAD ALI and 2 others 2002 P Cr. L J 1418