AAMIR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a bail application filed by the applicant, who is facing trial under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with F.I.R. No. 215 of 2005 registered at Police Station Orangi Town. The core legal question is whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail when a specific role of hitting the deceased with an iron bar in the abdomen resulting in death is attributed to him, distinguishing his case from co-accused who were granted bail. The court held that the bail application must be dismissed, reasoning that the applicant was assigned a specific role, supported by four eyewitnesses and corroborated by the medical report, and that mere delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not fatal at the bail stage when sufficient incriminating material connects the accused to the crime. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is assigned a specific role supported by eyewitness accounts and medical evidence, and distinguishable from co-accused, post-arrest bail will be refused.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when a specific role of causing a fatal injury is assigned and supported by eyewitnesses?
- Does delay in lodging the F.I.R. automatically make out a case for further inquiry warranting bail?
- Does the grant of bail to co-accused persons automatically entitle another co-accused with a distinguishable role to bail?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Through this bail application bail is sought by the applicant, who is facing trial in the case culminating from the F.I.R. No, 215 of 2005 registered in Police Station Orangi Town under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. In all there are three accused out of them two have been granted bail, one Tanveer has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi West and one Adnan has been granted bail by this Court interalia on the ground that no specific role was assigned to them. The case of the applicant stands on different footings. The applicant has been assigned the role of hitting the iron bar in the abdomen/stomach of the deceased, which resulted into death after three days.
3. The learned counsel of the applicant/accused has contended that there are contradictions in the statement of the complainant in the F.J.R. And in the statement recorded subsequently to the lodging of the F.I.R. He further submits that there is daily of three days in lodging of the F.I.R. His next contention was that the recovered iron bar from the applicant/accused was without blood-stains.
According to him this matter requires further inquiry.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel present with the Investigating Officer states that the case of the applicant stands on different footings than the case of co-accused Adnan and Tanveer, who were granted bail by this Court and by Court of Sessions Judge. According to her the F.I.R. Was lodged after the death of deceased and the medical report corroborated with the statements of the witnesses examined by the police. She submits that there are four eye- witnesses, who have supported the prosecution case and specific role has been assigned to the accused/applicant. She submits that this is not a case of further inquiry.
5. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. Specific role had been assigned to the applicant/accused and four eyewitnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and mere delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is not fatal to the case when there is sufficient material available against the applicant/accused to connect him with the crime. I therefore, dismiss this bail application.
Cited by 1 case
- ALI SHER and others vs The STATE 2016 P Cr. L J 627