SHEHZAD ABBAS vs THE STATE
This matter concerns two petitions for post-arrest bail filed by Shehzad Abbas and Shehzad Ahmad Qureshi, who were implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the specific allegations and the investigation findings. The Court held that both petitioners were entitled to bail. Regarding Shehzad Ahmad Qureshi, the Court granted bail on the principle of parity, noting his case was identical to a co-accused who had already been admitted to bail. Regarding Shehzad Abbas, the Court found that the injury attributed to him was simple in nature and that he had been declared innocent during the police investigation based on the statements of thirty witnesses. Consequently, the Court determined that the case against him required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that bail may be granted where a co-accused is similarly situated and where the prosecution's case requires further probe due to conflicting investigation findings.
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the ground of parity if a co-accused with an identical case has already been granted bail?
- Does a finding of innocence by the police during investigation constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted where the specific injury attributed to an accused is medically classified as simple in nature?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---Shehzad Abbas, petitioner, through Crl. Miscellaneous No.1315- B of 2005/BWP and Shehzad Ahmad Qureshi, petitioner, through Crl. Miscellaneous No.1327-B of 2005/BWP have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.394, registered at Police Station, Baghdad- ulJadid, on 11-8-2005 for offences under sections 302/34, P.P.C.
2. Both the applications are being decided through this single order as they arise out of the same occurrence.
3. The relevant facts per F.I.R. Are that Hasnain armed with pistol, Shahzad Abbas armed with wire lock hunter, Shahzad Ahmad and Zubair Ahmad launched criminal assault upon Bashir Ahmad son of the complainant. Shahzad Abbas, petitioner, caused injury with the wire lock hunter on the head of Bashir Ahmad, who fell down. Thereafter, Shahzad Qureshi and Zubair Qureshi gave kick blows to Bashir Ahmad. Husnain, accused after raising Lalkara caused injury with pistol on the left flank of Bashir Ahmad. Thereafter, the accused left the scene of occurrence and Bashir Ahmad, succumbed to the injuries.
' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant record of the case.
5. It has been noticed that the case of Shahzad Ahmad Qureshi, petitioner is identical to that of Zubair Qureshi who has been admitted to bail vide order dated 28-11-2005. Hence, he also deserves bail on the ground of parity. As far as Shahzad Abbas, petitioner is concerned one single injury by wire lock hunter is attributed to him. According to post-mortem report the injury was simple in nature, he was found innocent during investigation by the D.S.P. Concerned. The opinion of the police officer is based on the evidence of about thirty persons who appeared in defence of petitioner Shahzad Abbas. In the circumstances, the allegation qua Shahzad Abbas, petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Thus, I admit both the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of rupees one lac each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.