Haji SAEED AHMED vs STATE
The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 114, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Garh Maharaja, District Jhang, involving allegations of abetment to murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail on the grounds of consistency with co-accused who had already been granted bail, as well as mala fide due to previous enmity. The Lahore High Court held that since a co-accused with an identical role of abetment had already been granted bail and mala fide was established on record due to existing party enmity, the rule of consistency applied in favor of the petitioner. The court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that pre-arrest bail is justified where a co-accused with an identical role is granted relief and mala fide implication through previous enmity is apparent.
- Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted based on the rule of consistency when a co-accused with an identical role has already been granted bail?
- Does previous enmity between the parties constitute mala fide for the purpose of granting pre-arrest bail?
- Is an accused nominated for abetment entitled to pre-arrest bail when no active role is ascribed and co-accused with similar allegations are released on bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Haji Saeed Ahmad, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No, 131 dated 4.5.2008 registered under Sections 302/324/114/34 PPC at Police Station Garh Meharaja District Jhang.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he had abetted the offence wherein three persons were murdered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the police investigation petitioner was not found present at the place of occurrence. He has also referred to the case of rest of the accused persons, namely, Muhammad Ahmad, Hasnain and Haji Abdul Rashid who having similar roles have already been granted bail before arrest by this Court vide order dated 22.7.2008 passed in Crl.
Misc. No, 6175B/2008 and Crl. Misc. No, 6180-B/2008, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the petitioner be also granted bail before arrest. He further submits that this is a case of no evidence. He also submits that the eye-witness, namely, Muhammad Asghar had sworn an affidavit to the effect that the present petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. He lastly submits that there is a clear cut malafide on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the present petitioner in the aforesaid case as there exists previous enmity between both the parties due to which the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case.
4. Learned DPG while opposing the bail application submits that according to Zimni No, 37 dated 15.7.2008 the petitioner was held guilty in police investigation. As far as the role of accused persons who have been granted bail is concerned, in fact they were declared innocent during the investigation but the present petitioner was held guilty during the investigation. He lastly submits that the eye-witness Iram Ata Ullah fully implicates the petitioner with the commission of the said offence.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and have also perused the record. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with the role of abetment, however, no active rule has been ascribed to him. Since one of the co-accused, namely, Haji Abdul Rashid who has been ascribed the identical role has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22.7.2008 passed in Crl. Misc. No, 6175B/2008, therefore, rule of consistency demands that the petitioner be also granted bail as his role is exactly at par with that of Haji Abdul Rashid. Moreover, malafide on the part of the complainant is also proved on record as the I.O. present in the Court submits that there exists enmity between both the parties due to which present petitioner has been implicated in this case. As per the record it is established that the murders of three persons were committed by Muhammad Akbar, Khalid and Haji Umar Hayat and the present petitioner has falsely been 'implicated in this case.
6. Under the circumstances, I confirm ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.