2017 P Cr.

L J Note 104
[Lahore]
Before Abdul Sami Khan, J
IFTIKHAR---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE and another---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14218-B of 2016, decided on 16th November, 2016.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, grant
of---Further inquiry---Allegation against accused was that he was driving rickshaw on which the co-
accused had come at the place of occurrence---Injury which caused death of deceased was attributed
to co-accused---Accused had not caused any injury to deceased---Vicarious liability would be
determined by Trial Court after recording evidence---Abscondance was no ground to refuse bail---
Accused was previous non-convict and was never involved in any other case---Nothing had been
recovered from accused during investigation---Accused's further incarceration in jail would not
serve any useful purpose---Bail was granted accordingly. [Para. 2 of the judgment]
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Bail, grant of---Abscondance---Effect---Abscondance was no ground to refuse bail if
otherwise accused became entitled to grant of bail. [Para. 2 of the judgment]
2009 SCMR 299 rel.
Rana Muhammad Shahid for Petitioner.
Irfan Zia, Deputy Prosecutor-General along with Habib Ullah, ASI with record for the State.
Amir Javed Ranjha for the Complainant.
ORDER
ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. the petitioner
has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No.109/2003 dated 21.09.2003 under sections 302, 34,
P.P.C., registered at Police Station Esa Khel, District Mianwali.
2. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record
of this case has been perused with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper
appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that although the
petitioner is named in FIR yet no specific role has been attributed to him therein and only allegation
against him is that he was driving rickshaw on which the accused came at the place of occurrence.
The injury which caused the death of Aziz Ullah deceased is attributed to co-accused Arshad
Mehmood. The petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased. Possibility of widening the net
by the complainant cannot be ruled out of consideration. As far as vicarious liability of the
petitioner along with his co-accused for committing murder of Aziz Ullah deceased is concerned, it
is yet to be determined by the learned trial court after recording evidence as to whether it was in the
knowledge of the petitioner that his co-accused were going to commit murder of the deceased. As
far as the contention of learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner remained absconder
for long period of thirteen years is concerned, suffice it to observe here that people do abscond due
to fear of police. It is settled law that mere absconsion is no ground to refuse bail if otherwise the
accused becomes entitled to the grant of bail. Reliance can be placed upon 2009 SCMR 299.
Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-convict and never involved in any other case. He is
behind the bars since 26.06.2016. During investigation nothing has been recovered from the
petitioner. 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. 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 furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/-
(Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision
of this bail petition only.
WA/I-34/L Bail granted.