SHAHBAZ AHMED vs STATE
The petitioner Shahbaz Ahmad sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 464/05 registered under Sections 302, 324, 452, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Mangtanwala, District Nankana Sahib. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail considering his role of aerial firing, his status as an absconder, and the fact that co-accused with similar roles had been acquitted during trial. The Lahore High Court held that the case against the petitioner required further inquiry and admitted him to bail. The key principle laid down is that mere abscondence is not sufficient to withhold bail if the case is otherwise covered by further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, especially when co-accused attributed similar roles have been acquitted and the trial has been delayed.
- Can mere abscondence be sufficient to withhold bail when the case otherwise warrants further inquiry?
- Does the acquittal of co-accused with similar roles entitle another accused to the grant of bail?
- Whether an accused assigned only the role of aerial firing in a murder case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner Shahbaz Ahmad seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 464/05 dated 4.11.2005 for offences under Sections 302/324/452/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/148/149 PPC registered at Police Station Mangtanwala, District Nankana Sahib.
2. According to the FIR, on 4.11.2005 at 6.00 p.m. the petitioner armed with pistol .30-bore along with his co-accused criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant in order to teach him a lesson for purchase of land. The co-accused fired with his carbine hitting on abdomen of Abdul Sattar who lost his breath at the spot. The petitioner and co-accused resorted to the aerial firing.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that only presence of the petitioner at the spot is shown without any role. Only co-accused Zahoor Ahmad, Abdul Latif and Asif have been awarded punishment. The petitioner has been shown as a absconder whereas mere absconsion is no offence while for the last eight months he is in jail without trial.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed all these grounds.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned DPG for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, I find that the persons who were accused of the similar role, have been acquitted during trial. The only distinguishing feature against the present petitioner was his abscondence. There is no dearth of authority that mere abscondence may not be sufficient to withhold bail if otherwise justified on facts. It cannot be altogether denied that even innocent persons, when are indicated for serious offences like murders, run away on account of fear of third-degree-methods of police and the obduracy shown by their antagonists. In the present case, I find that the petitioner had only resorted to aerial firing as per FIR itself. Some other persons who were also similarly accused were acquitted at trial. The case against the petitioner, in my view, requires further inquiry entitling him to the grant of bail. He is behind the bars for the last eight months and conclusion of trial is not in sight. I, therefore, admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with-one surety on in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.