YLR 2014

2014 PLP 1242 (YLR)

TAHIR ABBAS — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.5405-B of 2013, decided on 24th May, 2013.
Honorable Judges
Abdul Sami Khan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2014 PLP 1242 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Abdul Sami Khan, J
Parties TAHIR ABBAS — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondent
Primary Law (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 1242 (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 1242 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Sami Khan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 1242 (YLR) (TAHIR ABBAS — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Sardar Muhammad Ramzan for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 34 & 109

Qatl-e-amd, common intention, abetment

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Although accused was named in the F.I.R. but no injury was attributed to him

Only allegation against accused was that he caught hold of the deceased at the time when co-accused made the fatal fire shots

Such allegation against accused did not appeal to a prudent mind as he would also be putting his own life at stake by catching hold of the deceased at a time when the co-accused was inflicting fire-shot injuries

Such type of allegation was very easy to level but difficult to prove-Nothing was recovered from accused during his physical remand

Investigation of case revealed that accused was merely present at the place of occurrence

Vicarious liability of accused was to be determined by Trial Court after recording of evidence

Investigation of case was complete and accused was no more required for further investigation

Case against accused was one of further inquiry

Accused was granted bail in circumstances.

S. 497

Bail, refusal of

Ground

Commencement of trial

Mere commencement of trial was no ground to refuse bail, if otherwise accused became entitled to bail. 2013 SCMR 49 rel. Nisar Ahmad Virk, Deputy Prosecutor-General for the State along with Zulfiqar A.S.-I. Mian Muhammad Sikandar Hayat for the Complainant.

Judgment & Decree

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.398/12 dated 12-11-2012 under sections 302, 34, 109, P.P.C., Police Station Langrana, District Chiniot.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent; he has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant by widening the net; the petitioner is a young boy; no injury is attributed to the present petitioner; the only allegation against the present petitioner is that he caught hold of the deceased whereas his co-accused fired shots on the deceased and caused fatal injury to him; such type of allegations are very easy to level but very difficult to prove; the petitioner remained on physical remand but nothing was recovered from him; during investigation it has come on record that the petitioner was merely present at the place of occurrence and has not taken any part in the occurrence; he is minor; he is behind the bars since 16-12-2012; it is settled law that vicarious liability of the accused is to be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence; investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation; his further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.

3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, after going through the record, has vehemently opposed this bail petition on the grounds that there is absolutely no malice of the complainant to falsely implicate the present petitioner in this case; the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific role of catching hold of the deceased; he is directly connected with the motive part; charge has been framed by the learned trial Court and the petitioner is delaying the trial on one pretext or the other; during investigation he has been found involved in this case by the Investigating Officer and the case of the petitioner falls under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of this case with their able assistance. It has been noticed by this Court that although the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but the facts remains that no injury to the deceased is attributed to him; the only allegation of catching hold of the deceased is attributed to the petitioner whereas his co-accused fired shots on the deceased with his pistol and caused fatal injury; it does not appeal to a prudent mind that a person would catch hold of deceased when his co-accused was inflicting fire shot injuries to deceased and is also putting his own life at stake; such type of allegations are very easy to level but very difficult to prove; admittedly the petitioner remained on physical remand but nothing was recovered from him; during investigation it has come on record that he was merely present at the place of occurrence; it is settled law that vicarious liability of the accused is to be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence; investigation of the case is complete and he is no more required for further investigation; no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars; mere commencement of trial is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise the accused becomes entitled bail; reliance can be placed upon 2013 SCMR 49 he is behind the bars since 16-12-2012.

5. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

6. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only. MWA/T-12/L Bail granted.