ABDUL HAMEED vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Abdul Hameed, in connection with F.I.R. No. 131 of 2003, registered under Section 302/34/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, having previously withdrawn a bail application, sought fresh bail on the grounds of changed circumstances, specifically that a panel of police inspectors had declared him innocent, a discharge report was submitted, and the complainant and an eyewitness had sworn affidavits exonerating him. Additionally, the petitioner noted he was not nominated in the F.I.R. and no recovery was effected from him. The State opposed the application solely on the basis of the prior withdrawal of the bail petition. The Court held that the subsequent developments, including the police finding of innocence and the exonerating affidavits, constituted fresh grounds that brought the case within the domain of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing that the emergence of new, material facts after the withdrawal of a previous bail application entitles an accused to seek bail again.
- Does a finding of innocence by a police panel constitute a fresh ground for a subsequent bail application?
- Can an accused be granted bail if the complainant and eyewitnesses have sworn affidavits exonerating the accused?
- Does the withdrawal of a previous bail application bar the filing of a subsequent bail application based on new facts?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Through the instant criminal miscellaneous Abdul Hameed, petitioner, who had previously applied for bail after arrest through Cr. Misc. No.937-B of 2003/BWP (Bashir Ahmed and others v. The State) in this Court, has again filed this application for grant of bail after arrest in the F.I.R. No.131 of 2003, registered with Police Station Taranda Muhammad Panah, District Rahimyar Khan under section 302/34/109, P.P.C.
2. ' According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after withdrawal of the earlier bail petition, new and fresh facts have arisen, which have entitled the petitioner for the grant of bail after arrest. As per learned counsel, Abdul Hameed, petitioner has been found innocent by a panel of three Police Inspectors of Range Crime Branch, on 11-1-2004. Discharge report for the petitioner was also submitted to the learned Judicial Magistrate but it was disagreed on 12-1-2004, so he is lying in the judicial lock-up. Supporting the case of the petitioner, learned counsel has submitted that the complainant and the eye-witnesses have sworn affidavits in which they have exonerated the petitioner from the commission of alleged murder of Karim Bakhsh deceased. It has further been argued that the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R.; no recovery was effected, in spite of investigation conducted by different police officers, so he was entitled for grant of post-arrest bail.
3. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that it is correct that panel of three Police Inspectors of Range Crimes Branch has declared innocent the petitioner on 11-1-2004. He has also admitted that the police file contains the affidavits of Jam Abdul Sattar, informant as well as Irshad Ahmad P.W., but he has opposed the bail on the ground that the bail petition of the petitioner was earlier withdrawn and dismissed. So, the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of bail.
4. ' I have considered the arguments of learned counsel and have perused the record.
5. As the learned State counsel has admitted that the Panel of police officers consisting of Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Suleman and Sultan Ahmad, Inspectors of Range Crimes, has declared the petitioner innocent on 11-1-2004. The police having moved for the discharge of the aforesaid accused, the production of affidavits, sworn by the informant Jam Abdul Sattar and another witness Irshad Ahmad, the fact that the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R. And no recovery was effected from him, all these facts, prima facie, had made the case of the petitioner to have fallen within the domain of 'further inquiry'.. As all these grounds have arisen after the disposal of the earlier bail petition, so these entitle the petitioner for the grant of bail, which is hereby granted to him subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (One hundred thousand rupees) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Syed SAEED AHMED alias ASAD JAFFARY Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 36