TANVEER HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner Tanveer Hussain booked in F.I.R. No. 6 of 2007 registered at Police Station City B-Division Sheikhupura under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein he was alleged to have caused a firearm injury to a witness and a shot hitting the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the role attributed, distinction from co-accused granted bail, and the advanced stage of the trial. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from co-accused who were found innocent in investigations, and that bail should not be granted at a late stage when six prosecution witnesses had already been examined and the trial was near conclusion. The key principle laid down is that post-arrest bail may be declined when the accused is specifically connected to the crime through consistent investigation findings and the trial is at its concluding stages.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the trial is near conclusion and multiple prosecution witnesses have been examined?
- Does the finding of guilt in police investigations distinguish an accused's case from co-accused who were found innocent?
- Is an accused entitled to bail merely on the ground that co-accused have been granted bail when their roles are distinguishable?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The learned counsel seeks post-arrest bail of the petitioner, who stands booked in F.I.R. No,6 of 2007 dated 7-1-2007 at Police Station City B-Division Sheikhupura.
The offences alleged in the said F.I.R. Are under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused fire-arm injury on the right leg of Mst. Samra and he also caused firing to the deceased, which hit him in his waist.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner no recovery was effected from the petitioner, no injury is attributed to the deceased; injury attributed to Mst. Samra is simple in nature; and commencement of trial is no bar if the case is otherwise made out for bail. In addition, the learned Counsel further added that co-accused Fiaz etc. Have already been granted bail by this Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous No,2859-B of 2007.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the co-accused already granted bail; injury to Mst. Samra is not denied which establishes participation and presence of the accused in the occurrence; and the trial has already commenced. The learned counsel for the State also supported the contentions of the learned Counsel for the complainant.
5. I have carefully examined and considered the arguments above mentioned. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the co-accused already granted bail by this Court. In more than one investigations the co-accused were found innocent, whereas, the petitioner was found guilty.
Moreover right now six prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the trial is likely to be concluded in near future, therefore, at this stage it will not be appropriate to grant this bail application.
6. In view of the above, this bail application is dismissed.