SVLEMAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from F.I.R. No. 262 dated 23-10-2001 registered under sections 302, 324, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Qila Deedar Singh, Gujranwala, concerning a murderous assault resulting in three deaths. The petitioner, Suleman, sought post-arrest bail on the ground that he was merely the driver of the Hilux van used in the incident and was compelled by the armed assailants at gun-point to transport them to and from the scene of the crime. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was an active participant in the occurrence or an innocent driver acting under duress. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R., was assigned no specific role or motive, had no connection to the previous enmity between the parties, and his plea of acting under duress was supported by the investigating officer's findings, he was entitled to bail. The court laid down that an accused person whose involvement is supported by a plausible plea of duress and who lacks motive or specific attribution in the crime may be admitted to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused person who claims to have acted under duress as a driver for assailants is entitled to post-arrest bail when not nominated in the F.I.R.?
- Does the acceptance of a plea of duress by the investigating officer during investigation constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Whether absence of motive and non-nomination in the F.I.R. justify the release of an accused on bail in a capital charge?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The matter pertains to case F.I.R. No.262, dated 23-10-2001 registered under sections 302, 324 and 149, P.P.C. At Police Station Qila Deedar Singh, Gujranwala.
The F.I.R. In this case was registered at the instance of Khurshid Ahmad There is history of a previous murder case inter se the parties as well. A murder case was fixed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gujranwala and five members of the complainant party were going the said Court for recording their statements when they found a Hilux van having 3/4 persons who belonged to the other side in the previous murder case and who were armed. It is alleged that the said persons were not nominated in the F.I.R. They stopped the vehicle of the complainant side after a Lalkara was raised by one of the members of the accused side. When Akhtar Saeed (not the petitioner) fired at the Hilux van with his rifle, the rest also fired and injuries were caused to different people Three persons were killed in this case.
3. Suleman petitioner is asking for his bail on the ground that he was the driver of the Hilux which was used by the accused side for the murderous assault and for the planned murder of those who were killed. But has taken the plea that it was at gun-point that he was asked to carry the assailants in his van and it was at gun-point that he later took them back to their respective places. During investigation and as it appears from the Zimni dated 5-1-2002 his plea appears to have been accepted by the Investigating Officer, who has not only recorded this police diary but even in the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has repeated his views about petitioner. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Asghar v. The State 2002 SCM R 1299.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant is of the view that he may be a party with them because of having remained away from the police during a good span of time until he was arrested. The A.S.-I.
Present in Court has suggested that this could be on account of fear because one of the assailants is a hired assassin who is his neighbour and the petitioner remained obsessed with fear because of him.
5. The question is whether petitioner was a party in the occurrence or was an innocent driver, who under duress had the assailants to the place of occurrence. His name appears nowhere in the F.I.R.
Nor has he been given a role. There is no motive attributed to him and he is not a party in the previous murder. The A.S.-I. Further informs that he carries on the business of hiring his Hilux for different purposes and is not a previous convict nor is he involved in any other case. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two local respectable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs THE STATE and anothers 2007 MLD 436