SAFDAR alias JAVED alias JAJI vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 1343/2006 registered under Sections 302, 324, and 109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Tandianwala, District Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering his delayed implication and the nature of the allegations against him. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail as he was arrayed as an accused through a belated supplementary statement after nine and a half months, was not shown armed with any weapon in the FIR, and was not attributed any overt act causing injury to the deceased or the prosecution witness. The court laid down the principle that unexplained delay in implicating an accused via a supplementary statement, coupled with the absence of specific overt acts or weapon attribution, provides sufficient ground for the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused implicated through a belated supplementary statement is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of an overt act or weapon attribution in the FIR justify the grant of bail?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when the supplementary statement implicating the accused comes nine and a half months after the occurrence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner (Safdar @ Javed @ Jaji son of Noor Muhammad) seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 1343/2006 dated 6.10.2006 offence under Sections 302, 324, 109/34 PPC registered with Police Station, Tandianwala, District Faisalabad.
2. As per story of the FIR on 6.10.2006 at 12.30 a.m. (night), accused Shafique Ahmad, armed with pistol .30 bore and Pervaiz Ahmad, armed with Rifle, alongwith two un-known persons-accused entered the house of the complainant. Accused, Shafique fired with pistol hitting front abdomen of Lal Din (deceased) brother of the complainant, whereas fire made by Pervaiz Ahmad, missed. The complainant caught hold the un-known accused but accused, Pervaiz Ahmad gave a blow with his rifle hitting on forehead of complainant and rescued the un-known persons accused from him and thereafter all the accused while firing ran away.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have found that petitioner was arrayed as accused in the present case through a supplementary statement dated 21.7.2007 after nine and half months of the occurrence. Even as per FIR he (unknown accused) was not shown armed with any kind of weapon, although recovery of pistol had been effected at his behest. He has not been attributed any overt act for causing injury to deceased as well as P.W.
Without commenting upon the merits as well as the authenticity of belated supplementary statement, I am inclined to allow bail to the petitioner.
4. For what has been discused above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is granted post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.