IQBAL HASSAN @ BALA vs STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous application whereby the petitioner, Iqbal Hassan alias Bala, seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 848 of 2006 registered under Sections 324, 337-D, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Factory Area, District Faisalabad. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the primary role of causing injury is attributed to a co-accused and the petitioner is only assigned a role of issuing threats subsequent to the occurrence, and whether the commencement of the trial bars the grant of bail. The court held that since the petitioner did not play an effective role in the principal offense and a case for further inquiry is made out, the commencement of the trial does not preclude the grant of bail, especially when the accused has been incarcerated for a significant period amounting to premature punishment. The petition was consequently allowed and post-arrest bail granted.
- Whether an accused attributed only with issuing threats after the main occurrence is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the commencement of a trial bar the grant of bail when a case for further inquiry is made out?
- Can prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial be considered premature punishment justifying the grant of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner (Iqbal Hassan @ Bala son of Abdul Waheed) seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 848/2006 dated 15.12.2006 offence under Sections 324, 337-D and 34 PPC registered with Police Station, Factory Area, District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that alter the occurrence he alongwith un-known accused advanced threats to complainant and P.Ws that if they came forward they would be done to death.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have found that main role of causing injury to injured P.W Muhammad Saleem as per FIR is attributed to co- accused, Sarfraz Khan, whereas the petitioner has been only attributed role of threats that also after the commission of occurrence by the co-accused. So the petitioner has not played any 'effective role in the alleged occurrence. As far as the contention of learned counsel for the complainant is concerned that trial have commenced and statements of two formal P.Ws has been recorded. It is settled proposition of law that, if the case of further inquiry is made out then one cannot be kept behind the bars on the ground that trial has commenced because in a case of further inquiry, grant of bail is right bl. an accused which cannot be denied merely on the ground that trial has commenced. The petitioner as arrested in the case on 18.12.2006 and is behind the bars since last one year and four months. So he cannot be kept behind the bars as premature punishment.
4. For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is granted post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.