RIAZ HUSSAIN SHAH vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case involving offenses under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, registered pursuant to a promptly lodged First Information Report. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of further inquiry and the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to bail, ruling that the petitioner was specifically named in the F.I.R. with a precise role of causing firearm injuries to the deceased, which was supported by medical evidence and police records. Furthermore, the court established that the principle of consistency is inapplicable where the role of the petitioner involves active participation in the crime, as distinguished from a co-accused who merely played an abetting role without active participation.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when a co-accused with a distinguishable role of mere abetment has been granted bail?
- Does the principle of consistency apply when the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. with a role of active participation supported by medical evidence?
- Whether bail should be granted when the police record belies the defense's claim of non-active participation during investigation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.---Seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,562 of 2005, dated 19-12-2005 for the offence under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Shukheke, District Hafizabad.
2. In brief the case of prosecution as penned in the F.I.R. Is that on 19-12-2005 at 4-15 p.m., petitioner who was armed with rifle along with his co-accused who were also armed with fire-arms in furtherance of their common intention had committed the murder of Ghulam Shabbir, Haider Abbas and Naqi Hassan as well as caused injuries to Ayub Haider. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused namely Intizar Hussain had caused fire-arm injuries to Ghulam Shabbir deceased.
2. In brief the case of prosecution as penned in the F.I.R. Is that on 19-12-2005 at 4-15 p.m., petitioner who was armed with rifle along with his co-accused who were also armed with fire-arms in furtherance of their common intention had committed the murder of Ghulam Shabbir, Haider Abbas and Naqi Hassan as well as caused injuries to Ayub Haider. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused namely Intizar Hussain had caused fire-arm injuries to Ghulam Shabbir deceased.
3. During the Investigation petitioner was arrested on 15-2-2006. Application of the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Pindi Bhattian, vide order, dated 3-6-2006, hence this petition.
4. Bail is sought on the grounds that prosecution has thrown its net too wide to implicate as many people as possible while distorting the true facts and in fact the petitioner was not present at the relevant time and had not participated in the occurrence; during the investigation nothing was recovered from the petitioner; co-accused of the petitioner namely Altaf has already been admitted to bail and the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of his co-accused; during the investigation it transpired that the petitioner though was present at the spot but had not actively participated in the occurrence.
' Conversely counsel for the complainant as well as the State vehemently opposes the bail application.
5. Heard. File perused.
' Not only that it is a case of promptly lodged F.I.R. In which petitioner has been named with a specific role of causing fire-arm injuries to the Ghulam Shabbir deceased, the medical evidence also supports the ocular account. The stand of learned counsel that during the investigation it transpired that petitioner had not actively participated in the occurrence stands belied by the record produced by learned counsel for the State. I have also observed that case of co-accused namely Altaf who was admitted to bail by the lower Court is distinguishable from the case of the petitioner because during the investigation it came to light that Altaf accused had not actively participated in the occurrence and had only abetted his co-accused for the commission of this offence, whereas the case against the petitioner is that of active participation in the occurrence.
Thus the principle of consistency is not applicable in the circumstances of this case. No ground for bail is made out. Dismissed.