Abdul Rehman vs The State
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Abdul Rehman, who is charged under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Muzafar Abad, Multan. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail, given the allegations of his involvement in the beating of the deceased and the subsequent death. The petitioner argued that the prosecution's version lacked medical corroboration, that he used no weapon, and that the police investigation had initially suggested the applicability of Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than Section 302. The Court observed that the co-accused had already been granted bail and noted discrepancies regarding the cause of death and the lack of specific attribution of sharp-edged injuries to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, emphasizing that where co-accused have been granted relief and the prosecution's case requires further investigation, bail is appropriate.
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused entitle the petitioner to bail under the rule of consistency?
- When does a criminal case fall within the scope of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is the absence of specific weapon attribution a ground for granting post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER SH. AZMAT SAEED, J. - Crl. Misc. No. 1636-B of 2007 filed on behalf of petitioner Abdul Rehman seeking post-arrest bail arises from case F.I.R. No. 120, dated 12.5.2006 registered with Police Station Muzafar Abad, District Multan for offences under Sections 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The precise allegation as embodied, in the F.I.R. Is the petitioner and the co-accused Ashiq Hussain gave beating to deceased. The co-accused was allegedly sitting on the chest of the deceased while the petitioner held his arms. Complainant and the PWs intervened and rescued the victim who subsequently died.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prosecution version does not find support from the medical 'as well as Chemical Examiner's report. Adds that petitioner did not use any weapon and there is no specific attribution to him and no previous enmity exists between the petitioner and deceased motivating the petitioner to do away with the deceased. Adds that police during the investigation concluded that no offence under Section 302, P.P.C. Was made out and in fact Section 322, P.P.C. Was attracted which does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause to Section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the State controverts the assertions and opposes the grant of bail on the ground that petitioner is involved in a heinous offence.
5. Admittedly, the co-accused, of the petitioner namely Ashiq Hussain has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 6.2.2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 3634-B of 2006. There is no reference of any sharp-edged injury alleged to have been inflicted by the petitioner in the F.I.R., through mentioned in the M.L.R. Cause of death is also not ascertainable. The aforesaid brings the case of the petitioner within the four corners of further inquiry, and by following the rule of consistency, I am inclined to exercise discretion in his favour with the consequence that petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.