BABAR vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail where he was named in the FIR with an allegation of aerial firing but was not attributed any injury to the deceased, and where the trial had not yet commenced. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was only alleged to have made aerial firing without causing any injury to the deceased and had been incarcerated for a considerable period without the commencement of the trial, he made out a case for further inquiry. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds. The key principle laid down is that an accused person attributed only aerial firing without causing injuries, coupled with protracted incarceration and delayed trial, is entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused attributed only aerial firing without causing injury to the deceased is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does delayed commencement of trial constitute a ground for granting post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Whether a case of further inquiry is made out when the role attributed to the accused is limited to aerial firing during an occurrence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Through instant petition, petitioner sought post arrest bail in a case FIR No, 311/2006 dated 01.09.2006 offences under Sections 302, 324, 109, 148 & 149 PPC registered at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case on account of male fide of the complainant as well as the local police who was siding with the complainant. He further submits that according to the allegation leveled in the FIR, petitioner has not caused injury to the deceased. Only allegation against the petitioner is that no made aerial firing. He is in judicial lock up since 19.09.2006 and the trial has not commenced at yet.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with active role and he is not entitled for the concession of bail.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record which shows that the petitioner while armed with 12 bore gun made aerial firing at the time of occurrence and did not cause any injury to the deceased. He is in judicial lock up since 19.09.2006. Trial of the petitioner has not commenced as yet. Hence, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupee One Lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.