MUHAMMAD ASIF and others vs THE 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. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of consistency with a co-accused who had been granted bail, delay in lodging the F.I.R., and the determination of the aggressor party. 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 investigation was complete with challan submitted, and observing that it was yet to be determined at trial which party was the aggressor given the cross-complaint. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be granted based on the rule of consistency when a co-accused has been released on bail and where further incarceration serves no useful purpose while the question of aggression remains to be determined at trial.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when a co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Does the pendency of a cross-complaint and the determination of the aggressor party justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether the completion of investigation and submission of challan render continued incarceration of petitioners unnecessary?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.--- 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 along with 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 Gui 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 aggressor 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.
Cited by 1 case
- Muhammad Imran vs The State, etc 2022 IHC 96