MASHKOOR vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was accused of participating in an unlawful assembly that resulted in the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite being nominated in the F.I.R., was entitled to bail given the absence of specific allegations or recovery of weapons from him. The Court held that while the petitioner was nominated, the F.I.R. contained only general allegations, and no active role or specific injury was attributed to him. Furthermore, no incriminating recovery was made from the petitioner. The Court emphasized that the heinous nature of an offense does not automatically preclude bail when there is a lack of specific evidence connecting the accused to the crime. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry and granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that general allegations without specific attribution of an active role are insufficient to deny bail in serious criminal cases.
- Does the mere nomination of an accused in an F.I.R. for a heinous crime preclude the grant of bail when no specific active role is attributed?
- Is an accused entitled to bail where the prosecution fails to allege a specific role or recover any weapon from the accused?
- Does the heinousness of an offense alone justify the denial of bail in the absence of specific allegations against the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.--- The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,337 of 2007 dated 29-6-2007 registered under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Gogera District Okara.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per narration of F.I.R. Are that he along with his accomplices while forming unlawful assembly had entered the house of the complainant and had committed the murder of Mohsin Ali.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner which could connect him with the commission of offence. There are only general allegations against the petitioners. No recovery has been effected from him and the petitioner was found empty-handed at the place of occurrence, therefore, petitioner's case falls within the ambit of further inquiry into his guilt and is thus, entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Learned D.P.-G. Opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of committing murder of Mohsin Ali while forming unlawful assembly and sharing common intention. He further submits that two eye-witnesses of the occurrence fully involve the petitioner with the commission of offence and also corroborate the story narrated in the F.I.R. The petitioner has been held guilty in police investigation and as per record the petitioner was very much present at the place of occurrence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.-G. And have also perused the record. The petitioner is no doubt nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role but at the same time it has to be seen as to whether what role has been attributed to the petitioner. It is decidedly established from the record that no active role has been attributed to the petitioner as per narration of F.I.R. There are only general allegations levelled against the petitioner. He was not even armed with any weapon. No recovery of any crime weapon has been effected from him. As far as the aspect of the murder of the deceased is concerned, in the absence of any specific allegation nothing definite can be ascertained regarding role of the petitioner as F.I.R. Is silent about it. Merely involving the petitioner with the commission of offence on the basis of, narration of F.I.R. Would not justify his role until and unless there are definite allegations against him. Even otherwise, it is not known as per police record as to whether the deceased was murdered due to any injury caused by the petitioner. Merely heinousness of the crime does not necessarily mean that the petitioner is involved in the case when there is no specific role attributed to him.
6. Under the circumstances petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit him to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
Cited by 4 cases
- MUHAMMAD FAROOQ alias PANNA vs THE STATE and anothers 2012 YLR 381
- HAKIM KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE and anothers 2012 YLR 1742
- MUMTAZ ALI vs THE STATE and another 2010 MLD 237
- DAIMUDDIN and 2 others vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 1089