MUHAMMAD AMJAD vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition whereby the petitioner, Muhammad Amjad, sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.364 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jhang, for offences under sections 457 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his specific nomination in the F.I.R., active participation, lack of mala fides or previous enmity for false implication, involvement in multiple other criminal cases, and status as a fugitive from law. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that reasonable grounds prima facie existed to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences, establishing his vicarious liability and shared common intention. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is nominated in the F.I.R. with active complicity, has no apparent enmity with the complainant, has a history of involvement in other criminal cases, and has remained a fugitive from law, post-arrest bail is rightly refused.
- Whether an accused nominated in the F.I.R. with active complicity is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does previous involvement in other criminal cases affect the grant of bail?
- What is the effect of an accused remaining a fugitive from law on a bail petition?
- Section 457, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 381-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Through this petition Muhammad Amjad petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.364 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jhang on 2-8-2003 for offence under sections 457/380, P. P.0 .
2. The petitioner had been specifically nominated in the F.I.R. As one of the perpetrators of the alleged offences and the narration of the F.I.R. Shows an active participation of the petitioner in the entire transaction. It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unable to point out any background of bitterness or between the complainant party and the petitioner so at to prompt the former to falsely implicate the latter in a case of this nature. The F.I.R. Shows that the petitioner had not physically entered the house of the complainant but at the same time because of his alleged active complicity and involvement in the entire transaction sharing of common intention by the petitioner and his vicarious liability for the offences allegedly committed by his co-accused is prima facie quite apparent in this case. The order dated 17-7-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang shows that the petitioner is involved in ten other cases pertaining to offences under sections 381-A, 382, 392 and 411, P.P.C. The petitioner had also statedly remained a fugitive from law in connection with the present case. For all these.Reasons prima facie reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and I have not felt persuaded to admit the petitioner to bail at such a stage. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Bail .