BABAR vs THE STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 311/2006, registered at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal, involving offences under sections 302, 324, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail on the grounds of false implication, mala fide, and the fact that he was not alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased, having only been accused of aerial firing. The petitioner had been in judicial custody since September 19, 2006, and the trial had not yet commenced. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's presence and active role as named in the F.I.R. Upon review, the Court observed that while the petitioner was armed, the specific allegation was limited to aerial firing without causing injury to the deceased. Considering the prolonged period of incarceration and the non-commencement of the trial, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Is an accused person entitled to post-arrest bail when the specific allegation is limited to aerial firing without causing injury to the deceased?
- Does the non-commencement of a trial after a significant period of incarceration constitute a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.-- Through instant petition, petitioner sought post arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No,311/2006 dated 1-9-2006 offences under sections 302, 324, 109, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case on account of mala fide of the complainant as well as the local police who was siding with the complainant. He further submits that according to the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. Petitioner has not caused injury to the deceased. Only allegation against the petitioner is that he made aerial firing. He is in judicial lock up since 19-9-2006 and the trial has not commenced at yet.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With active role and he is not entitled for the concession of bail.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record which shows that the petitioner while armed with .12 bore gun made aerial firing at the time of occurrence and did not cause any injury to the deceased. He is in judicial lock up since 19-9-2006. Trial of the petitioner has not commenced as yet. Hence, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.