RIAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE
This post-arrest bail petition was filed by Riaz Ahmad in connection with FIR No. 130 registered at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala, under Sections 452, 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core issue before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the evidence on record and his conduct during proceedings. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with reasonable promptitude and specifically nominated the petitioner with a definite allegation of firing at the deceased and the injured complainant. The ocular account was fully supported by medical evidence and statements of eye-witnesses, with no prior enmity established to suggest false implication. Additionally, the petitioner had remained a proclaimed offender for over a year, and the trial court had already been directed to conclude the trial within three months. The High Court held that prima facie reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner's involvement in non-bailable offences and accordingly dismissed the post-arrest bail petition.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted where the accused was a proclaimed offender and specific role of firing is assigned in a promptly lodged FIR?
- Whether the absence of direct motive or prior enmity warrants bail when ocular and medical evidence prima facie connect the accused with the commission of murder?
- Whether post-arrest bail should be refused when the trial is actively in progress under a direction for expedited disposal?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Through this petition Riaz Ahmad petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.130 registered at Police Station Model Town, Gujranwala on 22-4-2002 for offences under sections 452/302/324/34, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with reasonable promptitude and the petitioner had been specifically nominated therein as one of the perpetrators of the alleged offences. In the F.I.R. a definite allegation had been levelled against the petitioner regarding firing at Mst. Naseem Bibi deceased and Mst. Nasira Parveen complainant. It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R., including the injured complainant, have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences. It may be true that the petitioner does not appear to be directly connected with the dispute over property between the complainant party and the petitioner's co-accused but at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that apparently there was no background of bitterness or between the complainant party and the present petitioner so as to prompt the former to falsely implicate the latter in a case of this nature.
Prima facie the medical evidence lends support to the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. It may be significant to mention here that the petitioner had remained a proclaimed offender in this case for over a year and in his order dated 15-9-2003 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala had expressed strong reservations against admission of the petitioner to bail. The learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala has already issued a direction to the learned trial Court on 8-9-2003 to conclude the petitioner's trial within a period of three months. The trial of the petitioner is already in progress and, thus, no occasion has been found by this Court for admitting the petitioner to bail at such a stage especially when the conduct of the petitioner has not remained above board.
3. For what has been discussed above prima facie reasonable grounds do exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.