PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 287
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 302, 322, 148 and 149--Cross-version case--Post Arrest Bail--Grant of--Cross-version case was registered on the written application--Wherein complainant named as many as ten accused persons who were involved in the murder--The petitioner was not named as an accused at the time of the registration of the instant cross-version case--The name of the petitioner cropped up for the first time during the investigation of the case--Petitioner was somehow involved in the case which fact was told to her by PW--Said statements are also bereft of any other detail as to how, in what capacity, to what extent and in what manner the petitioner was involved in the case--The investigation of this case has already been finalized, a report under section 173 Cr.P.C has been submitted and the physical custody of the petitioner is no longer required--Case of the petitioner would be within the domain of section 497(2) Cr.P.C calling for further inquiry--The petition in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to the post-arrest bail. [Pp. 289 & 290] A, B, C, D, E & F
2019 SCMR 1914 ref.
Khawaja Qaisar Butt, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. James Joseph, Advocate for Complainant.
Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Malik, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing: 5.1.2023.
PLJ 2023 Cr.C. 287
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.
MUHAMMAD ATIF KHAN--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl Misc. No. 8364-B of 2022, decided on 5.1.2023.
Order
Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner namely Muhammad Atif Khan seeks post-arrest bail in the cross-version case registered on the application of Abida Perveen, through Rapt No. 28. dated 16.09.2022 at the Police Station Saddar Vehari, District Vehari, in respect of offences under Sections 302, 322,148 and 149, P.P.C. (related to F.I.R No. 654 of 2022, dated 16.09.2022 registered at the same Police Station).
2. The allegations as against the petitioner namely Muhammad Atif Khan, culled from the evidentiary material available before the Court, are that the petitioner along with his co-accused was involved in the Qail-i-Amd of Ali Liaquat (deceased), the son of the complainant of the cross-version case registered through Rapt No. 28 dated 16.09.2022.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the complainant, the leaihned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the record with their able assistance.
4. A Court considering a bail application has to tentatively look to the facts and circumstances of the case and once it comes to the inference that no reasonable ground exists for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, it has the discretion to release the accused on bail. In order to ascertain whether reasonable grounds exist or not, the Court should confine itself to the material placed before it by the prosecution to see whether some perceptible evidence is available against the accused, which if left unrebutted, may lead to an inference of guilt. Reasonable grounds are not to be confused with mere allegations or suspicions nor with tested and proved evidence, which the law requires for a person’s conviction for an offence. The term “reason to believe” can be classified at a higher pedestal than mere suspicion and allegation. A perusal of the evidentiary material produced before the Court reveals that the instant cross-version case was registered on the written application of Abida Perveen, through Rapt No. 28 dated 16.09.2022, (wherein Abida Perveen named as many as ten accused persons who were involved in the murder of Ail Liaquat (deceased) , her son, however the petitioner was not named as an accused at the time of the registration of the instant cross-version case. The name of the petitioner cropped up for the first time during the investigation of the case on 23.09.2022 when another written application was submitted by Abida Perveen. It is a fact that Abida Perveen in her written application submitted on 23.09.2022 only stated that the petitioner was somehow involved in the case which fact was told to her by Muhammad Faisal and Abdul Jabbar, however, did not give any other detail as to how, in what capacity, to what extent and in what manner the petitioner was involved in the case. A perusal of the statements of Muhammad Faisal and Abdul Jabbar recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 on 23.09.2022 also reveals that the said statements are also bereft of any other detail as to how, in what capacity, to what extent and in what manner the petitioner was involved in the case. It is also a fact that the inflicting of the fatal injuries to Ali Liaquat (deceased) had been alleged as against Muhammad Younis, the co-accused of the petitioner, whereas according to the narrative of the written application of Abida Perveen, dated. 16.09.2 022, upon which application the instant case way registered, the petitioner was not even named as an accused nor it was got recorded that the ten accused named in the written application of Abida Perveen, dated 16.09.2022, were accompanied by any unknown accused persons. In this manner, the prosecution case against the petitioner is prima facie bereft of any proof. The petitioner was arrested in the case on 23.09.2022. The investigation of this case has already been finalized, a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. has been submitted and the physical custody of
the petitioner is no longer required at this stage and their continued incarceration is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose. Prima facie there are reasonable grounds to believe that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Liability of petitioner for the offences would be determined by the learned trial Court after sifting the evidentiary worth of the material produced before the same. Till then, case of the petitioner would be within the domain of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. calling for further inquiry into the petitioner’s guilt. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Husnain Mustafa vs. The STATE and another” (2019 SCMR 1914) has held as under:
“Horrors of an heinous crime cannot impede release of accused on bail, if otherwise his guilt called for further probe nor bail can be withheld as a strategy for punishment.”
5. For what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/-(rupees five hundred thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. It is clarified that the observations enumerated are absolutely tentative in nature and restricted only to the extent of this particular petition, having no nexus and relevance with the trial, which shall be concluded quite independently and purely on merit. Additionally, a direction is issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner or any person acting on his behalf causes delay in the conclusion of the trial or if the petitioner absents himself from the learned trial Court or if the petitioner misuses the concession of bail in any manner, the learned trial Court would also be at liberty to cancel the bail, in accordance with the law.
(M.B.A.) Bail allowed
0 Comments