Muhammad Aslam vs The State
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by Muhammad Aslam seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 292 dated 9.10.2006 registered under Sections 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sahoo Ka, District Vehari. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner, who was empty-handed, did not cause any injury, and was assigned a role of raising a Lalkara, was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly when the complainant and husband of the deceased submitted an affidavit stating he had no objection to the grant of bail and that the petitioner was not present at the time of the occurrence. The Lahore High Court held that the case called for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner on post-arrest bail subject to furnishing appropriate surety bonds, establishing the principle that an unobjected compromise-backed affidavit by the complainant regarding presence and absence of overt acts can attract further inquiry for bail purposes.
- Whether an accused empty-handed and assigned only a Lalkara is entitled to post-arrest bail when the complainant submits an affidavit having no objection to bail?
- Does the absence of an overt act and motive attract the provisions of further inquiry for the grant of bail under criminal law?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER SH. AZMAT SAEED, J. - 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, P.P.C.
2. Muhammad Akram .Complainant husband of deceased disclosed in the F.I.R. 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 put 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 State 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 bounds in the sum of Rs. 2,0, 000/-.
(two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.