MUHAMMAD NADEEM alias DEEMA vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail in respect of F.I.R. No. 11 of 2004 registered at Police Station City, Sahiwal under sections 324, 148, 149, and subsequently added section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a firearm attack resulting in the death of Bilal Ahmad. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail after arrest when multiple police investigations declared him innocent, co-accused similarly situated were granted bail, and the petitioner was an absconder. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail, holding that since five successive police investigations found the petitioner innocent, no recovery was made from him, previous enmity existed, and co-accused with identical allegations were already released on bail, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that mere absconsion does not warrant indefinite incarceration or justify refusing bail when the basic merits of the case otherwise establish a right to bail on the rule of consistency.
- Whether an accused declared innocent in multiple police investigations is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the mere absconsion of an accused disentitle him to bail when his case is otherwise one of further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the rule of consistency when co-accused attributed similar roles and declared innocent by the police have been granted bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, I. The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,11 of 2004, dated 5-1- 2004 registered under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. But subsequently added section 302, P.P.C. At Police Station City, Sahiwal on the statement of Malik Sajjad Ahmad.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that, the petitioner along with other accused in furtherance of their common intention injured complainant's cousin, namely, Bilal Ahmad and other P.Ws. With their respective fire-arms but subsequently Bilal Ahmad succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the present case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that five investigations have been conducted by the police and in all the investigations the petitioner has been declared innocent. It is also contended that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enmity as is borne out from the record. It is further contended that the complainant has widened the net while attributing one injury to each of the accused. It is further contended that two co-accused of the present petitioner, namely, Muhammad Awais and Muzafar Ali Shah have been granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide orders dated 29-5-2005 and 21-10-2004, respectively and the petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment. It is lastly contended that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry and he may be released on bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes this application on the ground that the petitioner remained fugitive from justice and did not appear before the police for about 10 months.
Also contends that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and also perused the record. It is not denied by the learned State counsel that five Investigating Officers had conducted the investigation and in all the investigations the petitioner has been found innocent. A definite conclusion has been arrived at by the police officers that the petitioner had not participated in the alleged occurrence and nothing could be recovered from him during investigation. The previous enmity between the petitioner and the complainant party is even admitted in the F.I.R. In such circumstances the chances of false implication of the petitioner in the present case cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise two co-accused of the present petitioner, namely, Muhammad Awais and Muzaffar Ali Shah have already been granted bail by A the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal vide orders dated 29-5-2005 and 21-10-2004, respectively, who were also attributed injury on the person of the deceased but they were declared innocent by the police and nothing was recovered from them. The case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from the said co-accused and the petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment. Mere absconsion of the petitioner from law is no ground to keep him in jail for indefinite period and bail cannot be refused as a punishment. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. Bail after arrest granted.