ALLAH DITTA vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Allah Ditta in relation to F.I.R. No. 60 dated 18-3-2007 under Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code, registered at Police Station Ghaziabad, Sahiwal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on grounds of tentative assessment, lack of recovery, rule of consistency with a co-accused who was already granted bail, and the statutory delay in the commencement of the trial. The Lahore High Court held that the case against the petitioner falls within the scope of further inquiry under the law, given that the primary evidence was limited to a last-seen circumstance, a joint extra-judicial confession of questionable immediate evidentiary value, and the absence of any recovery from the accused. The Court laid down the key principle that bail should be granted on the principle of consistency when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been released on bail, particularly coupled with a protracted incarceration without substantial progress in the trial.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been granted bail?
- Does a case become one of further inquiry when the primary evidence against the accused consists solely of last-seen testimony and a joint extra-judicial confession with no recovery?
- Whether prolonged incarceration without substantial progress in the trial constitutes a valid ground for granting post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
'SAGHIR AHMAD, J.---Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,60 dated 18-3-2007 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Ghaziabad, Sahiwal.
2. I have considered the respective arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their assistance.
3. It has come on the record that so far the evidence against the petitioner is that of last seen. So far as the question of alleged extra judicial confession is concerned, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that it is joint confession and evidentiary value of such statement is to be seen during trial. Apart from that another co-accused namely Muhammad Nawaz who was also implicated on account of said extra judicial confession, has already been bailed out, and finding no distinguishing feature against A him, therefore, on the principle of consistency as well the petitioner is entitled to bail, especially when he is behind the bars for the last about one year and five months without any substantial progress in the trial. It is also not denied that nothing was recovered from the petitioner. In the above situation, case against the petitioner has become one of further inquiry. Resultantly, this bail application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
4. Needless to add that whatever has been observed above is purely tentative in nature and shall not influence the learned trial Court while finally deciding the trial of the case.