Zahoor Ahmad vs The State
This criminal petition was filed by Zahoor Ahmad seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 155/2005 registered under sections 302, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965 at Police Station New Multan, Multan. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of being an alleged abettor not present at the spot, applying the rule of consistency with a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that since the petitioner's role was that of an abettor who was not present at the spot, and relying on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State, the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that an accused assigned the role of an abettor not present at the scene of the crime is generally entitled to the concession of bail, particularly when a similarly situated co-accused has already been admitted to bail.
- Is an accused assigned the role of an abettor not present at the spot entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the law of consistency apply when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER TARIQ SHAMIM, J. - Through this petition the petitioner Zahoor Ahmad seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No. '155/2005, dated 13.03.2006 registered under sections 302, 148, 149 and 109, PPC read with Section 13 of the Arms Ordinances, 1965 at Police Station, New Multan, Multan.
2. According to the FIR, the petitioner and six other' accused, who were armed with deadly weapons launched criminal assault on the complainant party near Chargha House,. Chowk Kumharan Wala, while they were going back to their houses after joining the investigation of case FIR No. 148/2005 on13.03.2Q05 at about 8:50 p.m. The fire caused by Muhammad Ayyub, co-accused by Repeater Gun hit Akbar Ali, brother of the complainant who died at the spot. Thereafter the other accused succeeded in escaping from the place of occurrence while firing in the air.
3. The learned counsel for, the petitioner contended that no injury to deceased has been ascribed to the petitioner who has only been accused of abetment and that the co-accused namely Muhammad Naseem whose role was at par with, the present petitioner has already been granted bail by this Court vide Crl. Misc. No. 2875-B/2005, hence keeping in view the law of consistency, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The role of the petitioner is that of an abettor, who was hot present at the spot, therefore, following the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Syed Amanullah Shah v. The State (PLD 1996 SC 241). I am inclined to accept this petition. Resultantly the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court