MEHDI KHAN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 1031 of 2005 registered under sections 302, 396, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura, involving dacoity, murder, and firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the delayed nomination in a supplementary statement, his alleged enmity with police officers, and his extensive criminal record involving numerous grave offences. The Lahore High Court held that the offences attributed to the petitioner fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, that the petitioner had a history of involvement in multiple other criminal cases including murder, and that the trial had already commenced. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, reaffirming that a habitual offender facing charges falling under the prohibitory clause during an ongoing trial is not entitled to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused named in a supplementary statement is entitled to post-arrest bail when the trial has already commenced?
- Does involvement in multiple other criminal cases disentitle an accused from receiving post-arrest bail for offences falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Whether a case involving murder and dacoity under the prohibitory clause warrants the grant of post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 429, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The petitioner filed this post-arrest bail application in F.I.R. No,1031 of 2005, dated 3-12-2005, under sections 302, 396, 397, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura.
2. The allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. Is that some unknown persons entered into house of the complainant and committed dacoity and during the course of the said occurrence one person, Muhammad Younas was killed and two other persons, Muhammad Latif and Javed were injured with fire-arms.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. Was registered after three hours of the occurrence. According to him, the accused were not named in the F.I.R., the accused were named subsequently in a supplementary statement in collusion of police officers who had grudge against the petitioner as the petitioner has filed a writ petition against the police officials. The learned counsel submits that though the challan has been submitted in the Court, yet it does not effect right of the petitioner of bail. He submits that this is a fit case which requires further inquiry, therefore, the petitioner be granted bail.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that challan has been framed in this case under section 460, P.P.C. And under sections mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the trial has commenced, therefore, at this stage the bail should not be granted. The learned counsel for the State has adopted arguments of the complainant and added that the petitioner is a record holder.
5. I have heard the learned counsel as mentioned above. The record shows that the petitioner is not involved only in this case, as a matter of fact, list of F.I.Rs, has been produced in the Court which indicates that the petitioner is involved at least 13 other F.I.Rs, The cases include offences under section 302, 324, 429, 460 and other offences of grave nature. At last, three F.I.Rs, relate to offence under section 302, P.P.C. In the instant occurrence, one person was killed and two persons were injured. The offences attributed to petitioner through a supplementary statement are covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The trial has already been commenced, therefore, this Court is not convinced to allow this bail application, thus, it is dismissed.