MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE alias SADOO vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Siddique alias Sadoo, in connection with F.I.R. No. 184 registered under sections 324, 148, 149, 337-A(i), and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail despite allegations of abscondance, given that no specific role was attributed to him in the commission of the offense and he had remained incarcerated for a significant period. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court reasoned that the allegations against the petitioner were general in nature, with no specific role assigned regarding the injuries caused. Furthermore, the court established the principle that mere abscondance does not automatically deprive an accused of the concession of bail, especially when the accused has been incarcerated for a substantial duration and there is no immediate likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. Consequently, the petition was allowed subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does mere abscondance of an accused automatically disentitle them to the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when only general allegations are leveled against them without a specific role assigned in the commission of the offense?
- Can the duration of incarceration and the lack of likelihood of a trial concluding in the near future be grounds for granting bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.184 dated 13-3-2002 registered under sections 324/148/149/337-A(i)/L(ii), P.P C with Police Station Phoolnagar District Kasur on the ground that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner except general allegation and that he is behind the bars since 2-2-2005. Investigation qua him is complete and his person in no longer required for the purposes of investigation.
2. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner remained absconder, hence is not entitled to the concession of bail.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner was arrested in this case on 2-2-2004 and is behind the bars since then. There is a general allegation against the petitioner accused. No specific role has been assigned to have caused injuries to any person. Mere abscondance will not deprive him from the concession of bail particularly when he is behind the bars for the last one year and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial in the near future.
5.For what has been discussed above, this petition allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.