2025 PLP 731 (YLR)

Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J.

Through this petition filed under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner craves post-arrest bail in case FIR No.555 dated 01.07.2023, in respect of offences under sections 302, 324, 148, 149 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Pasrur, District Sialkot.

2. Facts of the case squeezed from the crime report are that on 01.07.2023 at about 06:10 p.m. the petitioner along with his co-accused namely Hafiz Idrees, Hamza Saleem, Bilal Amin and Muhammad Yar while equipped with their respective weapons intercepted the complainant party, made indiscriminate firing with their respective weapons, which resulted into the death of Hassan Hussain and multiple injuries to Fakhir Bashir (injured). Hence, the crime report.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant assiduously and perused the record minutely with their eminent assistance.

4. After going through the narration of FIR as well as evidentiary material collected by police and presented before this Court, it divulges that although petitioner is nominated in FIR but no specific role has been ascribed to him therein and only a general allegation has been levelled in FIR that he along with his co-accused, five in total, made indiscriminate firing and the fire shots made by all the accused, including the petitioner, landed on the bodies of Hassan Hussain (deceased) and Fakhir Bashir (injured). During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has opined vide case Diary No.35 dated 22.12.2023 that only Hafiz Idrees co-accused had made firing at the spot, resultantly, Hassan Hussain was murdered and Fakhir Bashir was injured, whereas the petitioner did not make any firing rather he was present at some distance at the time and place of occurrence. In this way, this case has become of two versions, one put forth by the complainant through FIR and the other in the shape of opinion of the Investigating Officer. This dichotomy will be resolved by the trial court after recording and evaluating the evidence that which version is correct. At this stage, the case of petitioner squarely falls within the domain of further inquiry as contemplated under section 497(2) Cr.P.C. I fortify my view from the following case-laws titled as "Ehsan Ullah v. The State" (2012 SCMR 1137), "Saif Ullah v. The State and others" (2019 SCMR 1458), "Najeeb Ullah v. The State and another" (2020 SCMR 1241) and "Muhammad Ramzan v. The State and others " (2021 SCMR 1914).

5. Keeping in view the role attributed to the petitioner in crime report as well as a totally contrasting opinion given by the investigating officer as noted above, questions of sharing common intention or vicarious liability of petitioner will also be adjudged by the trial court at the time of trial. Reference can be made to the case titled as "Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State" (1996 SCMR 1125), "Manzoor Hussain and another v. The State" (2011 SCMR 902) and "Muhammad Ameen v. The State and another" (2022 SCMR 1444).

6. No doubt only tentative assessment is to be made in post-arrest bail and deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence at this stage is neither desirable nor permissible but benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused even at bail stage if the facts of the case so warrant. Reliance is placed on the case titled as "Resham Khan and another v. The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and another" (2021 SCMR 2011) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in paragraph No.8 of the judgment has held as under:- "... The insight and astuteness of further inquiry is a question which must have some nexus with the result of the case for which a tentative assessment of the material on record is to be considered for reaching just conclusion. The case of further inquiry pre-supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of the accused in the crime. It is well settled that object of trial is to make an accused to face the trial and not to punish an under trial prisoner. The basic idea is to enable the accused to answer criminal prosecution against him rather than to rot him behind the bars. Every accused is innocent until his guilt is proved and benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused even at bail stage if the facts of the case so warrant. The basic philosophy of criminal jurisprudence is that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and this principle applies at all stages including pre-trial and even at the time of deciding whether accused is entitled to bail or not..."

7. Learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vociferously argued that the offence with which the petitioner has been charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. and that is a heinous offence, for the reason, he is not entitled for concession of bail. I am not in agreement with this contention because it is well settled by now that mere heinousness of offence is no ground for the refusal of bail to an accused who otherwise becomes entitled for the concession of bail. Wisdom is derived from the case-law titled as "Husnain Mustafa v. The State and another" (2019 SCMR 1914).

8. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and there is no prospect of early conclusion of his trial. The investigation to his extent is complete and he is no more required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his captivity would not serve any useful purpose and bail could not be withheld as a strategy of punishment. Moreover, keeping the petitioner incarcerated would tantamount to punish him before the culmination of trial.

9. The epitome of above discussion is that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for grant of post-arrest bail, therefore, this petition is accepted and petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (five lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

10. However, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition. JK/M-54/L Bail allowed.