FAKHAR ABBAS vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition filed by Fakhar Abbas seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 69 of 2001 registered under sections 459, 324, 394 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shahkot, District Sahiwal. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where he is not named in the F.I.R., was implicated through a co-accused's statement, and the firearm injury is attributed to a co-accused rather than the petitioner. The Lahore High Court held that the case against the petitioner falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as there is no direct evidence connecting him to the crime at this stage and the evidentiary value of the co-accused's statement is subject to trial evaluation. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that implication by a co-accused without direct evidence and where active participation like firing is attributed to another warrants further inquiry under the bail provisions.
- Whether an accused not named in the F.I.R. and implicated through the statement of a co-accused is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a case fall within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the firearm injury is attributed to a co-accused?
- Is bail to be granted when the trial has not commenced and direct evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime is absent?
- Section 459, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Fakhar Abbas seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,69 of 2001 registered under sections 459/324/394/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Shahkot, District Sahiwal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Tanveer Kausar was asleeping in her house alongwith his brother in corridor of the house and at 1-30 a.m. (night) three persons wearing masks whose description has been given in the F.I.R. Entered the house. They awakened the complainant and her brother Zahid Javed. The brother and sister were confined in a room. They obtained forcibly keys of the rooms from them but they raised hue and cry whereupon accused fired at the complainant, report of gun-shot attracted the eye-witnesses and the accused without taking anything from the house fled away. During investigation Yasin one of the co-accused was arrested as his Identity Card was found in staircase of the complainant whereby he was traced out. On his arrest he disclosed that petitioner and Muhammad Tahir were his accomplice in the aforesaid occurrence .12 bore carbine was recovered from the petitioner during investigation. The fire is attributed to Yasin co-accused. The challan has been submitted but the trial has not commenced so far.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was arrested on 22-4-2001, the trial has not commenced. There is no direct evidence to connect petitioner with the crime. The blow which caused injury to complainant is attributed to co-accused Yasin. The case against the petitioner is of further inquiry.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the bail. Heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He was implicated on the statement of Yasin co- accused who's Identity Card was found at the place of occurrence. Petitioner has not fired at the complainant. The worth of the statement of co-accused Yasin is to be evaluated during the trial. At present the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. i,e, of further inquiry
7. For the reasons stated above petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.