ROSHAN DIN vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein the petitioner, Roshan Din, was accused of facilitating the murder of Mst. Munawar Shehzadi. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner assisted the principal accused, Muhammad Anwar, in fleeing the scene on a motorcycle following the fatal shooting. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was found innocent in two separate police investigations and placed in Column No. 2 of the report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that since no overt act was ascribed to the petitioner, and he had been declared innocent by multiple investigating officers whose findings were verified by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where the investigation consistently exonerates an accused and no specific incriminating act is attributed, the case warrants the benefit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the placement of an accused's name in Column No. 2 of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for bail?
- When does a criminal case qualify for the benefit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if no overt act is ascribed to them in the commission of the alleged offense?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner Roshan Din through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,188, dated 2-11-2002, under section 302/34, P.P.C. Police Station Fareed Nagar, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 2-11-2002 at about 3-00 p.m. Muhammad Anwar armed with pistol alongwith Roshan Din (petitioner) and Jaffar alias Zafar in furtherance of their common intention have committed Qatl-i-Amd of deceased Mst. Munawar Shehzadi. Muhammad Anwar had fired at her with his pistol hitting on her right arm near the shoulder while Roshan Din (petitioner), thereafter, took him away towards Railway Station on his motorcycle. Mst. Munawar Shehzadi succumbed to her injuries in Civil Hospital, Pakpattan Sharif.
The motive behind the occurrence is that Muhammad Anwar had illicit relations with her and had persuaded her to have divorce from her husband and to marry him. On her refusal they have committed the above act.
3. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that he had been falsely roped in; that in two successive investigations he has been found innocent and his name has been placed in Column No,2 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C.; that no recovery of motorcycle was effected from him; and that he is behind the bars and a previous non-convict.
4. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has though opposed the petition but has conceded that in two investigations i,e, one conducted by Muhammad Aman Ullah S.-I. And the other by Ghulam Abbas, Inspector/S.H.O. Of the said Police Station, he has been found innocent and their investigation was verified by Muhammad Zulfiqar, D.S.P. (Investigation), Pakpattan Sharif and his name has been placed in Column No,2 of their report under section 173, Cr.P.C.; that no recovery was effected from him.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The fact remains that no overt act qua the deceased has been ascribed to him (petitioner) in the commission of the crime alleged. He has also been found innocent in two investigations conducted by aforesaid police officials and verified by D.S.P. (Investigation), Pakpattan Sharif.
Admittedly his name has been plked in column No,2 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. And no recovery has been effected from him. In these circumstances, I am of the view that his case is open to further inquiry and as such the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif/trial Court.