MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 186 of 2005, registered at Police Station Mitroo, District Vehari, for offences under sections 506, 337-H(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the offences, the delay in lodging the F.I.R., the lack of recovery, and the rule of consistency regarding a co-accused already granted bail. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the remaining offences were not punishable by death, imprisonment for life, or ten years, thus falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court noted the seven-day delay in the F.I.R., the absence of recovered empties despite allegations of aerial firing, and the principle of consistency, as a co-accused with an identical role had already been granted bail. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the petitioners were admitted to bail.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted bail?
- Are offences under sections 506 and 337-H(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a significant delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute grounds for granting bail?
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners seek bail after arrest in the case. F.I.R.
No.186 of 2005, 'dated 21-6-2005 for offences under sections 506/337-H(ii)/148/149, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Mitroo, District Vehari.
2. The brief fact of the case are that on the day of the occurrence the petitioners and their co- accused while armed with different weapons trespassed into the "Ehata" of the complainant and resorted to aerial firing after extending threats of dire consequences and on the arrival of Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Zafar P.Ws. The petitioners and their co-accused left the place of occurrence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the case was investigated by the local police as well as the D.S.P. (Investigation) who directed the S.H.O. To prepare cancellation report. However, the investigation was transferred to D.S.P. (Investigation) Headquarter who after a thorough probe deleted sections 379 and 452, P.P.C. Hence the case against the petitioners was doubtful; that no empty has been recovered from the spot which further belies the prosecution story; that co- accused of the petitioner namely Abdul Hayee has been granted bail by the learned trial Court and keeping in view that all the accused have been assigned same role, under the law of consistency, the petitioners are also entitled to the concession of bail; that no recovery has been effected from Akram petitioner; that offences punishable under sections 506/337-H(ii), P.P.C. Are not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the rule laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in such-like cases is fully applicable. Further contended that the only role assigned to the petitioners is of ineffective firing and no one was injured from the complainant side hence the case of the petitioners is one of further inquiry and they are entitled to the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioners were nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role had been assigned to them; that after the occurrence the petitioners absconded; that the challan has been submitted and charge has been framed in the case. Further that the weapons of offence have been recovered from Aslam and Abdul Rauf petitioners as such they are not entitled to the concession of bail.
5 & 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Admittedly, there is delay of seven days in lodging of the F.I.R. And on account thereof false involvement of the petitioners cannot be ruled out particularly A as there is litigation pending, between the parties regarding the "Ehata" in question where the occurrence took place. The D.S.P.
(Investigation) after investigating the case had recommended cancellation of the case however, on re-investigation, the D.S.P. (Investigation) Headquarter deleted section 379 and 452, P.P.C.
Whereafter only sections 506 and 337-H(ii), P.P.C. Remain against the petitioners. Section 337-H(ii), P.P.C. Is a bailable offence whereas the provisions of section 506, P.P.C. Are not prima facie B attracted to the case of the petitioners. In any case the offences are not punishable with death, transportation for life or with ten years hence the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Bashir v. The State (PLD 1995. SC 34) is fully attracted to the case of the petitioners. Further no empty has been recovered from the spot which further makes the case of the prosecution doubtful as according to the C F.I.R. Extensive aerial firing was done by the petitioners. No recovery has been effected from Akram petitioner and the co-accused namely Abdul Hayee has already been granted bail by the learned trial Court hence keeping in view the rule of consistency, the petitioners are also entitled to the concession of bail as the role assigned to the said Abdul Hayee is identical to the one assigned to the petitioners. The petitioners are behind the bars since 30-3-2006 and apparently there is no progress in the trial. A tentative assessment of the evidence on the record reveals that prima facie connection is not enough evidence on the record to connect the petitioners with the commission of the alleged offences.
7-A. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.