YASIN vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Yasin, in connection with FIR No. 83/08 registered under Sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite allegations of firing at the complainant and his father, a history of criminal involvement, and conduct demonstrating an attempt to frustrate judicial proceedings. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision emphasizes that bail is not a matter of right where the accused has a history of criminal conduct and has demonstrated a pattern of abusing the legal process, specifically by securing pre-arrest bail multiple times while failing to comply with court directions or join investigations. The Court established the principle that an accused's conduct, including the deliberate stultification of trial proceedings and failure to cooperate with the investigation, is a material factor that weighs heavily against the grant of bail, even when the trial has been pending for several months.
- Can an accused's history of abusing pre-arrest bail proceedings be a valid ground for refusing post-arrest bail?
- Does the failure of an accused to join an investigation and comply with court directions justify the dismissal of a bail petition?
- Is an accused entitled to bail solely on the basis of the duration of incarceration if their conduct has contributed to the delay in trial?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 83/08 u/S. 324/ 337-A(i), 337-A(ii) /148/149 PPC registered with Police Station Saddar Renala Khurd, District Okara.
2. The FIR was lodged on the statement of Tariq Masood, complainant against petitioner and his co-accused with the allegation that on 26.2.2008 at 7.00 p.m., he alongwith his father was coming back to their house and no soon did they reach near the grocery shop, the co-accused Muhammad Nasir armed with deadly weapons like guns, rifles and pistols, interpreted them and the petitioner alongwith other co-accused started firing. The fire issued by the petitioner from his gun hit on right and left knees of the father of the complainant.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel of the petitioner that there is a delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR. Injuries No, 3 and 4 constituted an offence u/S. 337-F(iv) PPC. The nature of the injury has been shown as Madiah which is on the non-vital part of the body. The injuries are doubtful as other accused have also been attributed the same injuries. The principle accused Muhammad Sardar is also attributed the same injury. Petitioner is in jail for the last nine months without any progress in trial. No recovery has been effected. Reliance was placed on PLD 2004 SC 477; 2007 YLR 2102 (Lahore).
4. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have controverted and argued that the offence u/S. 324 PPC is also made out which is punishable upto imprisonment for 10 years.
The parties are inimical towards each other. Petitioner is involved in five other cases of the same nature. During investigation, he has been found guilty for the offence and charge has been framed.
The conduct of the petitioner is also to be taken into consideration as he availed the concession of pre-arrest bail thrice but did not join investigation.
5. Heard. The injured sustained injuries on right ear and on both legs and other parts of body. The role of the petitioner was that he straightaway fired at him during a concerted attack. He was also attributed to firing at complainant who luckily escaped. Previously his pre-arrest bail petition was rejected thrice for non-prosecution and non-submission of surety bonds. Prosecution is ready to produce its evidence subject to the condition that the defence also cooperates. According to the version of the prosecution, most of the adjournments have been granted at the request of the petitioner. The petitioner has a criminal history of similar cases. He secured bail before arrest thrice but every time, he did not file surety bonds and also did not appear in Court despite clear directions. His role in the occurrence and subsequent conduct qua pre-arrest bail proceedings prima facie showed that he was a very clever criminal and acting as a desperado, had been trying to frustrate the orders of the Court. Trial proceedings are also being stultified by the defence. For these reasons, his bail petition is dismissed.