Babar vs The State
This is a criminal petition filed by the petitioner, Babar, seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 311/2006 dated 01.09.2006, registered under sections 302, 324, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have only committed aerial firing without causing any injury to the deceased and had been detained in judicial lock-up for a significant period without the commencement of the trial, made out a case for the grant of post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner did not cause any firearm injury to the deceased and the trial had not yet commenced, he was entitled to the concession of bail. The court laid down the principle that an accused attributed only with aerial firing and no direct fatal or substantive injury, coupled with delayed trial, establishes grounds for post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused person entitled to post-arrest bail when attributed only with aerial firing and no injury to the deceased?
- Does the non-commencement of a trial while the accused remains in judicial lock-up constitute a ground for granting bail?
- Whether bail should be granted under sections 302 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when no active role of causing injury is established against the petitioner?
- 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 01.09.2006 offences under sections 302, 324, 109, 148 & 149, PPC 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 19.09.2006 and the trial has not commenced as 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 which 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 19.09.2006. 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/- (Rupee One Lac only) with two sureties in the like amount the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.