TAJ MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 353, 216, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sections 13, 20, and 65 of the Arms Ordinance, following a police encounter resulting in fatalities and injuries. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds that he was declared innocent by investigating officers (S.H.O. and D.S.P.), that a co-accused similarly situated had been granted bail, and that he had been incarcerated for over two and a half years without the submission of a final challan. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's history of other criminal cases and his status as a proclaimed offender. The Court held that the petitioner's case was at par with the co-accused who had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the Court established that the mere involvement in other criminal cases is not a sufficient ground for refusing bail, particularly when those cases do not involve murderous assault or dacoity, and granted the petition.
- Does the mere involvement of an accused in other criminal cases constitute sufficient grounds for the refusal of bail?
- Can bail be granted to an accused who has been declared innocent by the investigating police officers?
- Is the principle of parity applicable when a co-accused similarly situated has already been granted bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 216, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance
- Section 20, Arms Ordinance
- Section 65, Arms Ordinance
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks' bail after arrest in case F.I.R.
No.69 dated 5-4-2001 registered under sections 302/324/353/ 216/ 148/149, P.P.C. Read with sections 13-20-65 of Arms Ordinance, at Police Station, Sahooka District, Vehari.
2. Briefly the facts as per the F.I.R. Are that in order to arrest the proclaimed offenders namely Murtaza, Farman, Mumtaz. Taj alias Tajji and Saeed a police party headed by Jameel Hussain, S.-I.
Consisting of number of police officials while armed with rifles went at about 5-45 p.m. To Basti Jhandaywali and encircled the same. These accused who were proclaimed offenders tried to run away from the house of Mansha Sheikh which effort was failed and on wireless further police official were summoned. The accused started firing and clue to the firing of the accused Muhammad Nadeem, and Muhammad Aslam constables died while Rizwan Yousaf, Inspector received fire-arm injury on his right arm And Muhammad Anwar and Imtiaz constables also received the injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was found innocent by the S.H.O.
And the D.S.P. As ,weIl and co-accused Saeed who was also declared innocent by the police has already been granted bail by this Court while accepting Crl. Miscellaneous No.597-B of 2002 and that the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of the co-accused Saeed. Further contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since 3-12-2001 whereas the challan has not been submitted by the police so far.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes this application on the ground that the petitioner is involved in 15 other criminal cases and is criminal bent of mind. It is next contended that the petitioner remained proclaimed offender and is not entitled to grant of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The pet4ioner was arrested on 3-12-2001 but up till now final report under section 173, Cr P.C. Has not been submitted by the police and that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 2-1/2 years. Even otherwise the petitioner has been declared innocent by the S.H.O. And the D.S.P. The case of the petitioner is at par with the case of Saeed co-accused who has already been granted bail by this Court on the ground that Ito was declared innocent by the police while accepting Criminal Miscellaneous No.597-B of 2002 on 18-4-2002. Moreover, involvement of the petitioner in number of cases is not ground for refusal of the bail as the petitioner is not involved in the cases of murderous assault or decoity cases. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (rupees two lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate.