Muhammad Shahbaz | vs The State
The petitioner Muhammad Shahbaz sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 304/2007 registered under Sections 324, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar Gujranwala, for allegedly launching a murderous assault and causing firearm injuries to the complainant. The core legal questions involved the effect of delay in lodging the F.I.R., the statutory prohibitory clause, and the statutory delay in concluding the trial while the accused remained incarcerated. The Lahore High Court held that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. was sufficiently explained by compromise pressures, the petitioner was specifically named with active attribution supported by the medico-legal report, and thus no case for bail was made out. The petition was dismissed, but the trial court was directed to conclude the trial by a specific deadline due to the prolonged incarceration of the accused.
- Whether delay in lodging the F.I.R. is satisfactorily explained by allegations of pressure for a compromise?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause disentitle an accused to post-arrest bail when specifically named with firearm attribution supported by a medico-legal report?
- Can a petition for post-arrest bail be dismissed while simultaneously issuing directions to the trial court for expeditious conclusion of the trial due to prolonged incarceration?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER M.A. ZAFAR, J. - Muhammad Shahbaz petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 304/2007, dated 9.5.2007 registered with Police Station Sadar Gujranwala under Sections 324, 34 and 109, P.P.C, at the instance of Muhammad Tariq Butt,
2. According to the allegation on 11.4.2007 at about 9.30 p.m. Petitioner and his co-accused launched murderous assault on the person of Tariq and caused firearm injuries to him.
3. it contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is delay of one month in lodging the F.I.R, and the petitioner is in custody for the last fifteen months and no prosecution witness has been examined so far. .
4. On the other hand learned D.P.G, submits that the offence with which the petitioner has been charged falls within the prohibitory clause and the play lodging the F.I.R, has been fully explained by the prosecution.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record I find that delay in lodging the F.I.R, has been explained by the complainant stating therein that accused party had been pressurizing him for compromise and not to lodge the F.I.R. Petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R, and as per allegation he fired there pistol shots hitting on the person of the complainant and the injuries attributed to the petitioner with fire-arms are borne-out from the medico-legal report of Muhammad Tariq Butt who was examined on the. Very day of the occurrence i. e. 11,4.2007.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the ^ is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, since the petitioner is in custody for the last about fifteen months. Learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial on or before 31,3.2009 and the compliance report be submitted to this Court through D.R. (Judicial)