MUHAMMAD ASIF and others vs STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 337-A(ii), 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(ii), 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of consistency, delayed FIR, counter-version, and completion of investigation. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, applying the rule of consistency as a co-accused had already been granted bail, noting that some co-accused were declared innocent during investigation, observing that determination of the aggressor party required trial adjudication, and stating that keeping the petitioners behind bars indefinitely after the submission of the challan served no useful purpose. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted based on the rule of consistency with co-accused, pending determination of the aggressor in cross-versions, and when the investigation is complete and trial conclusion is awaited.
- Does a co-accused qualify for post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency if another co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when an investigation is complete, a challan has been submitted, and the trial has not yet determined which party was the aggressor?
- Is indefinite incarceration justified when the investigation is complete and trial proceedings are pending?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioners have sought their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 475 of 2005 dated 24-9-2005 registered under Sections 337-A(ii)/337- A(i)/337-F(i)/337-F(ii)/337-F(iii)/337-F(v)/337- L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Harappa, District Sahiwal.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioners as per prosecution story is that they alongwith other co-accused armed with various weapons hatchets and Sotas etc. on the Lalkara of Nawaz petitioner/ accused injured Zulfiqar, Tanveer, Gulzar Manzoor and others in furtherance of their common intention.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case on the basis of previous enmity; that the petitioners were arrested in the case on 31-10- 2005 and are behind the bars so far; that co-accused namely Muhammad Nawaz, Shahbaz and. Arshad have already been declared innocent by the Investigating Agency and Gul Khan co-accused has been granted bail and on the rule of consistency the petitioners also deserve for the concession of bail; that the accused party has also filed complaint against the complainant and others, wherein they have been summoned by the learned trial Court; that there is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the F.I.R. and offence against the petitioners does not fall within prohibitory clause. That in fact the complainant party was aggressor and the petitioners also received injuries during the occurrence.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that this is a daylight occurrence; that the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role has been attributed to them.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioners were arrested in the case on 31-10-2005 and are behind the bars so far. Co-accused namely Gul Khan has already been granted bail and under the rule of consistency the petitioners also deserve the concession of bail. Muhammad Arshad, Muhammad Nawaz and Shahbaz co-accused have been declared innocent during the course of investigation and it is yet to be determined during the trial that which party was aggresor as the accused party has admittedly filed complaint against the complainant party, wherein the learned trial Court has summoned the respondents/complainant party. Investigation in the case is complete, challan has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction and no useful purpose would be served to put the petitioners behind the bars for an indefinite period.
6. For what has been discussed above the petitioners are allowed bail subject to furnishing their bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) each, with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.