MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of F.I.R. No. 32 of 2006 registered under Sections 324, 337-F(vi), 334, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar, Sangla Hill. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of statutory delay, inconsistent police findings regarding co-accused, and further inquiry. The court held that the petitioner's case is distinguishable from co-accused found innocent during investigation, noting that the petitioner admitted his presence by making a statement before the police, led to the recovery of the weapon used in the incident, and is prima facie connected to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within four months. The key principle established is that an accused who admits presence, faces recovery of the crime weapon, and is prima facie linked to an offense within the prohibitory clause is not entitled to bail merely because co-accused were declared innocent.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when co-accused attributed specific injuries have been declared innocent by the police?
- Can a statement made by an accused before the police during investigation be considered at the bail stage along with other evidence?
- Does the recovery of a weapon from the accused during investigation constitute sufficient prima facie connection to deny bail for an offense falling within the prohibitory clause?
- Whether statutory delay of over a year in conclusion of the trial warrants the grant of bail under subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in heinous offenses?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Akram Khan, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 32 of 2006 registered on 4-2-2006, under sections 324/337-F(vi)/ 334/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Sadar, Sangla Hill District Nankana
2. The brief allegation as per contents of the F.I.R. Is that the petitioner while armed with rifle along with the three co-accused also armed with fire-arm weapons attacked upon Muzammal Khan son of the victim. Nadir Khan raised Lalkara, Balawat Khan made fire hitting on the fingers of left hand, fire made by the petitioner hit him on the left thigh and fire of Shah Behram hit Muzammal Khan injured on the left thigh, who fell down.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the other two co-accused who were also attributed specific injuries have been declared innocent by the police, so the story of the prosecution has been found doubtful and the same injury on the left thigh of the victim was attributed to Shah Behram co-accused. Relies upon 2005 M LD 415, to contend that benefit of coaccused who has been declared innocent will also go to the accused of simple role at the time of bail stage. It is 'further contended that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year and four months without any progress in the trial and as such the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Who may be released on bail.
4. The learned Additional Prosecutor General on the other hand opposes the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is the main accused and recovery has also been effected from his possession; that the case of petitioner is distinguishable from the case of the co-accused; that offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution.
6. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of the coaccused who were also attributed injuries as they have been found innocent by the police during the investigation. On the other hand the petitioner himself appeared before the police after the incident on 16-2-2006 and made statement that the victim had come to commit his murder while armed with pistol and fired at him twice. The statement of the petitioner made before the police during the investigation can be considered at bail stage along with the other evidence collected by the police. Different police official had investigated , the case and found the petitioner as guilty. The petitioner also led to the recovery of gun which was used during the incident. There is sufficient evidence available on the record to prima facie connect the petitioner with the offence which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The charge has already been framed in the main case and there is likelihood of early conclusion of the trial. Hence this application is dismissed.
7. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within four months from the receipt of this order.