MAQSOOD AHMAD alias RANA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Maqsood Ahmad alias Rana, who was implicated in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of consistency, noting that a co-accused, Muhammad Sajid, had already been granted bail by the High Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidence of 'Waj Takkar' (last seen evidence) recorded seven weeks after the incident and the similarity of his role to that of the co-accused already released. The Court held that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry, noting the unexplained delay in recording the witnesses' statements and the lack of clarity regarding the motive and the manner of the occurrence. Applying the rule of consistency, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, holding that he was entitled to the same treatment as his co-accused, whose role was identical and who had already been admitted to bail.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
- Can a case be considered one of further inquiry when witness statements are recorded with an unexplained delay of seven weeks?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail if the FIR is silent regarding the motive or the theft of valuables during a murder occurrence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD ASHRAF BHATTI, J.----On the information given by Ashiq Ali, the complainant just two hours after the occurrence that took place at 3-00 a.m. In between the night of 22/23-11-2007 the local police of Police Station Ahmad Yar, District Pakpattan Sharif registered a case under section 302/34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,222, dated 23-11-2007 for the murder of Abdul Hameed, father of the complainant by three unknown persons of medium height and physique wearing Shalwar Qamiz and equipped with .12 bore gun and pistol who had knocked at the door of the complainant's house and asked his father, having brought some money. On hearing this conversation of the complainant with the said persons when his father Abdul Hameed and mother Mst. Sakhian Bibi too emerged from the other room, the one armed with .12 bore gun fired straight at him which hit his father below the abdomen, as a result of which he fell down. Ahmad Bakhsh and Abdul Ghaffar were attracted to the occurrence. He was taken to Arifwala Hospital but died on reaching there, Maqsood Ahmad alias Rana, the petitioner was involved on the basis of supplementary statements of Riaz Ahmad, Muhammad Abbas, Fiaz Ahmad and Wakeel Ahmad, the witnesses of Waj Takkar recorded on 13-1-2008, who had allegedly seen him along with his co-accused passing near by them at about . 2-30 a.m. In the night between 22/23/11-2007.
2. This petition has been opposed by the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the order, dated 22-4-2008 passed by my learned brother Mazhar Hussain Minhas, J granting bail to Muhammad Sajid co-accused to make a point that role of the present petitioner is similar to the one assigned to him and so on the basis of rule of consistency the petitioner too deserves the similar treatment.
5. On the other hand, learned Law Officer submits that on the basis of the statements of the aforesaid P.Ws. The petitioner stands involved in this case and since the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He deserves no leniency. But careful perusal of record shows that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the purview' of further inquiry. According to the contents of the F.I.R. The accused persons firstly asked for complainant's father who had brought some money into his home but instead of making any effort to get that money made a straight fire at Abdul Hameed. The F.I.R. Is silent as to any valuable thing taken away from the house of the complainant during the occurrence. Therefore, possibility that the occurrence may not have taken place in the manner as suggested by the complainant, cannot be ruled out.
6. Secondly, after a lapse of more than seven weeks the aforesaid P.Ws. Suddenly came up with the evidence of Waj Takkar despite the fact that they belong to the same village giving no explanation as to what prevented them to disclose the evidence of Waj Takkar to the complainant. The petitioner is also admittedly resident of the same village and since the F.I.R. Is silent as to whether the petitioner or his co-accused had muffled their faces, failure on the part of the complainant to identify the petitioner does not make any sense.
7. As regards the role of the petitioner it appears to be at par with that of Muhammad Sajid, who has already been granted the concession of bail on the basis of observation made by my learned brother Mazhar Hussain Minhas, J., that the firearm injury was attributed to Abdul Majeed only and not to the present petitioner.
8. For what has been discussed above, I find it a fit case for the concession of bail and allow the petitioner bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.