MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which dismissed the petitioners' application for post-arrest bail. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of consistency with co-accused who were granted bail and on the plea of further inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit and refused leave to appeal, affirming the impugned order. The Court laid down the principle that where an accused is specifically named in the FIR with a distinct role of causing fatal injuries and is found guilty during the police investigation for offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the rule of consistency does not apply to equate their case with co-accused who were differently situated, and bail cannot be granted.
- Whether an accused specifically named in the FIR with a role of causing fatal injuries is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency with co-accused who were granted bail?
- Does a case fall for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 merely because co-accused have been granted bail?
- Can bail be granted for offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused are found guilty during police investigation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against order, dated 24-4- 2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, in Criminal Miscellaneous No,302/B of 2003.
2. A case F.I.R. No,538, dated 1-10-2001 under sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioners and others at Police Station, Noor Shah, and District Sahiwal for the murder of Azhar Hussain son of the complainant Muhammad Sharif. It was alleged that the petitioners while armed with hatchets, accompanied by their co-accused who were similarly armed, caused injuries on the person of the deceased who succumbed to the same at the spot. The petitioners and other co- accused moved the trial Court for grant of bail which was declined qua the petitioners but was granted to the co-accused. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,302-B of 2003 which was dismissed by the impugned order passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench.
Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that it was a case of un-witnessed occurrence.
The other co-accused Muhammad Ramzan alias Bagga, Faqir Muhammad and Muhammad Hassan against whom similar role was attributed had already been granted bail by the trial Court.
It was contended that the local police had come to the conclusion that it was a blind murder.
Therefore, the police had deferred the arrest of the petitioners. On account of findings of the police of innocence of the co-accused, the complainant had filed a private complaint before the trial Court. The learned counsel lastly submitted that the case against the petitioners called for further inquiry as to their guilt.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. The petitioners were named in the F.I.R. With a specific role of causing injuries on the person of the deceased with their hatchets.
The case of the petitioners is not at par with other co-accused to whom the bail was granted as the petitioners were found guilty during the police investigation. The offences against the petitioners fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the impugned order, dated 24-4-2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. This is not a fit case for grant of bail.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this B petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.