ABDUL GHAFFAR and others vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous application seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner Abdul Ghaffar and others. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioners are entitled to bail on the grounds of statutory further inquiry, rule of consistency with a co-accused, and the nature of the offence, balanced against allegations of specific role attribution involving weapons and numerous injuries on the injured person. The court dismissed the bail petition holding that since the trial has already commenced and charges have been framed, it is inappropriate to enter into the merits of the case at this stage. The key principle laid down is that once a trial has commenced and progressed to the stage of framing charges, bail applications should generally not be evaluated on deep-merit appraisals, leaving the matter to the trial court.
- Whether bail can be granted when the trial has already started and charge has been framed?
- Does an allegation of multiple injuries with weapons bar the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused has been granted bail?
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' It is 'contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that co-accused Nisar was allowed bail by this Court, that offence alleged against the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., that petitioner party had also lodged case F.I.R. No.70 against the complainant in the same police station and that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner was armed, with hatchet and Dattar, that there are 13 injuries on the person of Muhammad Anwar injured, that trial has started, charge has been framed, that on the last three dates of hearing witnesses were present but on two dates of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court and on the last date of hearing, learned Court was on leave. .3. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties. As the trial has started, so without going into the merits of the case, this petition is dismissed.