IMAM BUKHSH and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to an incident where the petitioners were accused of instigating their brother to commit the Qatl-i-Amd of the complainant's father. The core legal question is whether the petitioners, charged with abetment and conspiracy without causing any physical injuries or being present at the spot, are entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the allegations of instigation lacked sound supporting evidence at this tentative stage, and considering their absence from the scene and potential false involvement due to close familial ties with the main accused, the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that where evidence of conspiracy or instigation is tentative and petitioners are not shown to have caused injuries or been present at the crime scene, bail may be granted on the basis of further inquiry under criminal procedure.
- Whether petitioners accused of instigation without causing physical injuries are entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the lack of sound immediate evidence regarding conspiracy warrant further inquiry under criminal law?
- Can close family relationship with the main accused alone justify denial of bail when participation is tentative?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Heard.
2. As a result of the case bearing F.I.R. No,166 registered with Police Station Basti Malook, District Multan, on 19-5-2001, under sections 302 and 109, P.P.C. the petitioners Imam Bukhsh and Abdul Rasheed stand involved in the allegations that on their instigation their brother Muhammad Shafi while armed with a Toka on 19-5-2001 at about 1-30, p.m. committed the Qatl-i-Amd of Allah Dewaya father of the complainant while inflicting Toka blows. The motive behind the occurrence was that Muhammad Shafi accused suspected that the deceased is selling 4 Kanals of land owned by him and that one Kanal of land illegally possessed by him will be taken over due to same. So, the above-said case was registered at the instance of Allah Rakha complainant.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that regarding baseless allegation of instigation there is no sound evidence on the record and that the petitioners have been involved falsely because of close relationship with the co-accused, therefore, to the extent of petitioners this case calls for further inquiry, which have been opposed by the learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant who submits that there .is sound evidence to connect the petitioners with the commission of offence under section 109, P.P.C., therefore, it is not a fit case for bail.
4. It appears from -the perusal of the record that regarding question of allegation of conspiracy or instigation there is no sound evidence because had there been any evidence the deceased would have been informed in this regard quite earlier., anyhow this assessment is tentative in nature. They did not cause any injury to the deceased. They were not present at the spot; they are not connected with the motive, however, it is correct that they are close relatives of the main accused, therefore, there is possibility of their false involvement and being so the facts of the case call for further inquiry".
5. As a consequence of the above discussion, the petitioners Imam Bukhsh and Abdul Rasheed are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Multan.