IQBAL HASSAN alias BALA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Iqbal Hassan alias Bala, who was implicated in F.I.R. No. 848 of 2006 for offences under sections 324, 337-D, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the status of the trial. The court observed that the primary role of causing injuries was attributed to a co-accused, while the petitioner was only alleged to have issued threats after the occurrence. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner did not play an effective role in the commission of the offence, making his case one of further inquiry. The court established the principle that where a case for further inquiry is made out, the commencement of the trial does not preclude the grant of bail, as an accused cannot be detained indefinitely as a form of premature punishment. Finding the petitioner's prolonged incarceration unjustified, the court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does the commencement of a trial automatically bar the grant of post-arrest bail in a case of further inquiry?
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the ground that the trial has already commenced?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the primary role of causing injury is attributed to a co-accused and the petitioner's role is limited to post-occurrence threats?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.--- Petitioner (Iqbal Hassan alias Bala son of Abdul Waheed) seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,848 of 2006 dated 15-12-2006 ottence under sections 324, 337-D and 34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Factory Area, District Faisalabad.
2. Briefly the allegation against the petitioner is that after the occurrence he along with unknown 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 F.1.R. 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 of an accused which cannot be denied merely on the ground that trial has commenced. The petitioner was 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.