MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Maqsood, who was implicated in a case registered under Section 324 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a delayed supplementary statement. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of his implication, the delay in recording the supplementary statement, his age, and the fact that a co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, observing that his case was on a better footing than that of the co-accused who had already been granted relief. The Court emphasized that bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment and that the petitioner’s case warranted further inquiry. The key principle laid down is the rule of consistency in bail matters, where an accused is entitled to bail if their case is similar to or on a better footing than a co-accused who has already been granted bail, particularly when the trial is not expected to conclude in the near future.
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the principle of consistency if a co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment?
- Does a delayed supplementary statement implicating an accused warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Muhammad Maqsood S/o Muhammad Ali petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 366/2008 dated 31.07.2008 offence under Section 324/34 PPC registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad, District Multan.
2. It is inter alia contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR, therefore, no question of attribution of any role arises. The complainant is real father of the petitioner whereas injured PW is first cousin of the petitioner. Supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded after six days wherein the petitioner was implicated. The petitioner who is aged about 16 years; that supplementary statement recorded after delay of 6 days is of no value in the eyes of law. Two accused were impugned in the FIR. One petitioner and co-accused Mst. Rashida who is wife of the injured PW. To the extent of Mst. Rashida, the complainant has effected compromise. All PWs mentioned either in _ the FIR or supplementary statement are real brother of the injured PW. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last about 10 months. Bail cannot be with held by way of punishment. The conclusion of trial is not in sight in near future. The petitioner's case therefore calls for further inquiry, therefore, prayed for acceptance of instant bail petition.
3. Conversely learned Deputy Prosecutor General vehemently opposes the bail petition and submits that the injured PW has implicated the petitioner as well as Mst. Rashida wife of injured.
PW; that both the petitioner as well as co-accused Mst. Rashida attacked him with a view to commit his murder. Further submits that the injured PW became unconscious and upon recovery of health and with the permission of the Doctor his statement was recorded on 15.08.2008.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Admittedly principal accused/co-accused Mst. Rashida has been allowed bail by the learned Sessions Judge. Admittedly ad-interim pre-arrest bail to Mst. Rashida principal/co-accused was confirmed vide order dated 07.10.2008 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Multan, in view of conceding statement having been made in her favour by the complainant as well as injured PW.
The case of the petitioner is not only at par with the co-accused already granted bail rather on better footing. He is behind the bars since 07.08.2008 and by now it is well settled law that bail cannot be with held by way of punishment. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner does have force that this petitioner is also entitled to the grant of bail on the principle of consistency. He is also aged about 16 years. Therefore, I am of the considered view that case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry. In view of above this petition is allowed subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
With these observations this petition stands disposed of.