LAL DIN vs THE STATE and another
This petition seeks post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner was nominated in the FIR with the specific role of holding the deceased by his arms, facilitating the co-accused in inflicting a fatal hatchet blow. The petitioner argued false involvement, exoneration during police investigation, and lack of active injury attribution. The State opposed the bail, citing prompt lodging of the FIR and the specific role attributed to the petitioner. The Lahore High Court held that since the challan has been submitted, the trial has commenced, and charge has been framed, it is not appropriate to delve deep into the merits of the case at the bail stage. Furthermore, the opinion of police officers declaring an accused innocent is not binding on the court. Finding sufficient material on record connecting the petitioner to an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court dismissed the petition.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the trial has commenced and charge has been framed?
- Is the opinion of police officers declaring an accused innocent binding on the court during bail proceedings?
- Does holding the arms of a deceased person during a murder fall within the prohibitory clause disentitling the accused to bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
'HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this petition, petitioner, Lal Din son of Jethoo seeks post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,121 of 2009 dated 5-4-2009 registered with Police Station Thingi, District Vehari, under section 302/34 P.P.C. On the complaint of Muhammad Afzal son of Ata Muhammad, complainant.
2. Brief facts of the case are, that oil 4/5-4-2009 the accused Yameen son of Lal Din came to his Bathek and took Nasir brother of complainant with him. After sometime the complainant heard hue and cry and went to the house of Lal Din along with PWs, he saw that Lal Din and Khushi Muhammad have caught hold Nisir from his arms and Yameen gave hatchet blow on the right side of neck of Nasir and caused him death. Motive behind the occurrence is that two months ago Yameen and Nasir quarreled with each other due to this grudge the accused persons called Nasir in their house and done him to death. Hence, this case.
3. Petitioner moved his post-arrest bail in the Court of Sessions Judge, Vehari, which was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, the same was dismissed vide his order dated 19- 9-2009.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no injury on the part of the deceased is attributed to the petitioner; only allegation of caught hold of the arm of the deceased is attributed to the petitioner; that being father of main accused Muhammad Yameen petitioner is falsely involved; during the investigation the present petitioner and Khushi Muhammad real brother of the petitioner was exonerated; there is no enmity or grudge or dispute with the deceased and witnesses of the present petitioner; during the investigation it was found that Nasir deceased by scaling over the wall of the house of petitioner forcibly caught hold Mst. Parveen niece of the petitioner on this Yameen son of the petitioner could not succeed to control upon and gave a hatchet blow on the deceased; during the investigation petitioner and his co-accused, Khushi Muhammad were declared innocent vide case diary No,17 dated 4-6-2009; that Challan has been submitted in the Court; that investigation has been completed and nothing have been recovered from the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the grounds that F.I.R. Is promptly lodged; petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of caught hold of arms of deceased, which facilitated the murder of deceased is attributed to the petitioner, therefore, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
7. The accused is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role, who caught hold of arm of the deceased Nasir and facilitated Yameen main accused causing hatchet blow to deceased. Challan has been sent to trial Court and trial has commenced, accused were charge sheeted and prosecution evidence have been summoned. When the trial commences, it is not fair to go into the merits of the case in form of bail. I am fortified from the judgments reported as Muhammad Sadiq and others v. The State 1980 SCM R 203, Mst. Parveen Akhtar v. The State and others 2002 SCM R 1886.
Opinion of the police officers is not ipso dixit binding on Court. I am fortified by the judgment titled as Manzoor Ahmad v. The State PLD 1972 SC 81 and Waris Ali v. The State 2001 SCM R 640. There is sufficient material on police file to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence, which falls within the Prohibitory Clause of section 497 Cr.PC. Learned counsel badly failed to make out the case as one of further inquiry or to establish any reasonable ground for grant of bail, therefore, I am not inclined to grant post arrest bail to the petitioner, therefore, this A petition is dismissed.