SAIF ULLAH vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Saif Ullah, in connection with F.I.R. No. 108 of 2003, registered at Police Station Wanike Tarar, involving offenses under sections 324, 353, 186, 216, 440, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who had remained a fugitive from law for approximately four years, was entitled to the concession of bail despite the allegations of firing upon a police raiding party. The Court observed that no police official sustained injuries during the alleged occurrence, co-accused had already been sentenced or granted bail, and the petitioner had been in custody for eight months. The Court held that while an absconder forfeits certain rights, detention cannot serve as a punitive measure for abscondence alone when the case requires further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt. Consequently, the Court accepted the bail petition, emphasizing that the petitioner could not be detained indefinitely, and directed his release upon furnishing bail bonds.
- Can an accused be denied bail solely on the ground of previous abscondence if the case otherwise requires further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if no injuries were sustained by the complainant party during the alleged occurrence?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 216, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' M.A. ZAFAR, Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,108 of 2003 registered with Police Station Wanike Tarar,' District Hafizabad, under sections 324, 353, 186, 216, 440, 148 and 149 P.P.C. At the instance of Muhammad Sharif/complainant.
2. The brief facts of the case as alleged in F.I.R. Are that complainant Muhammad Sharif, A.S.-I.
Along with raiding party in order to arrest present petitioner, along with one Rabia Bibi in case F.I.R.
No,264 of 2001, dated 25-5-2001, under sections 452, 337-L(ii), 337-F(v), 148, 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Pindi Bhattian, conducted raid upon them at their Dera. It was further alleged that petitioner along with other co-accused on seeing the police party started straight firing on the raiding party and the shots hit on the tractor used by the raiding party. A tyre of the tractor was burst in the occurrence. The police party used tractor and trolley as a shield and also fired back in defence.
3. Petitioner was arrested on 3-6-2007 and his post-arrest bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, vide order dated 20-9-2007. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely involved by the complainant, who is police official, with mala fide intention and for ulterior motive just to pressurize the present petitioner for the arrest of his relatives, who were proclaimed offenders and co-accused in this case, but as a matter of fact petitioner has nothing to do with them. He further contends that Ahmad and Muhammad Yar, co-accused of the petitioner, were done to death by the police in a fictitious police encounter and they happened to be the nephews of the petitioner. He submits that there is nothing in the F.I.R. That what type of arm petitioner was holding at the time of alleged occurrence. He further submits that as per allegation 7 persons fired at the police party but not a single person from the side of the police was injured. He adds that petitioner due to fear of police did not surrender as the petitioner's life was in danger and petitioner is in custody for the last 8 months. Learned counsel relies upon Muhammad Nasir v. The State 2007 PCr.LJ 1715 and Muhammad Amjad v. The State 2007 PCr.LJ 1977.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General submits that petitioner remained fugitive from law for more than 4 years, and thus he is not entitled to concession of bail.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that in the alleged occurrence not a single police official was injured, Ahmad and Muhammad Yar, co-accused of the petitioner, have already died during the police encounter. Nasar and Allah Ditta, co-accused made confession before the learned trial Court and they have been sentenced 15 months' R.I. Jannat Bibi and Rabia Bibi, co- accused of the petitioner, A are on bail. No doubt an absconder loses some of his normal rights including bail. Involvement of petitioner in the alleged occurrence itself requires further inquiry into his guilt, he could not be detained in jail for an indefinite period by way of punishment for his abscondence only. Thus, the present petition is accepted and it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.