MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs STATE
This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Muhammad Aslam seeking post-arrest bail in case First Information Report No. 292 registered at Police Station Sahoo Ka District Vehari for offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, who was empty-handed, attributed only a Lalkara, and whose case is supported by an affidavit of no objection from the complainant husband, is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the provisions of further inquiry are fully attracted to the case, making out a ground for judicial interference. The court accordingly directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to furnishing appropriate security bonds, establishing the principle that an unassigned active overt act coupled with mitigating circumstances like a complainant's non-objection affidavit can bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is empty-handed and only attributed a Lalkara?
- Does a complainant's affidavit offering no objection to bail constitute an extenuating circumstance for granting bail?
- When do the provisions of further inquiry attract the grant of bail in a murder case under Section 302 PPC?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
This order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. 2130-B of 2007 filed on behalf of petitioner Muhammad Aslam seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 292 dated 9.10.2006 registered with Police Station Sahoo Ka District Vehari for offences under Sections 302/34 PPC.
2. Muhammad Akram complainant husband of deceased disclosed in the FIR that on the fateful day while they were working in the cotton field, petitioner empty handed also emerged at the scene of crime and raised Lalkara to do away with the wife of the petitioner, whereupon, Muhammad Afzaal fired from his pistol hitting the back of left shoulder causing her spontaneous death.
3. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that present case is an outcome of malice and misunderstanding. Adds that no overt act and motive has been assigned to the petitioner who was empty handed was not sharing the common intention to kill and did not cause even a scratch to deceased. Last but not the least, learned counsel vehemently asserts that complainant who happens to be the husband of his deceased wife and the eye- witness of the occurrence, has sworn an affidavit categorically reiterating that the former has no objection for the grant of bail to the petitioner and that the latter was not present at the time and place of occurrence and this being an extenuating circumstance and a valid ground for the grant of bail to petitioner who is behind the bars for the last about a year without any progress in the trial.
4. Learned counsels for the Sate and complainant do not seriously object to the grant of bail on the grounds urged at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Evaluating the pros and cons of the present case, I am of the considered view that provisions of further inquiry are fully attracted making out a case for interference. Therefore I direct that petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- (two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.