MUHAMMAD NADEEM vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Nadeem, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused facing identical allegations had previously been granted bail by the High Court. The petitioner argued that the medical evidence regarding the cause of death—specifically the absence of internal or external injuries and the possibility of death by vasovagal shock—rendered the case one of further inquiry. The State opposed the bail, citing the advanced stage of the trial and the imminent conclusion of prosecution evidence. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as his co-accused to maintain judicial consistency. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail petition, directing the petitioner to furnish bail bonds, while simultaneously instructing the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within one month.
- Is an accused entitled to bail if a co-accused facing identical allegations has already been granted the same concession?
- Does the absence of specific internal or external injuries in a post-mortem report constitute grounds for further inquiry in a murder case?
- Can a court grant bail to an accused even if the trial is at an advanced stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, J.--- Muhammad Nadeem petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,156 dated 5-3-2008 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station City Burewala District Vehari.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations against the petitioner were that he inflicted kick blow in the abdomen of Mst. Bashiran Bibi deceased, who was subjected to post mortem examination and doctor did not observe any external or internal injuries in the abdomen of the deceased and the doctor is of the view that death of the deceased could be due to visovagal shock; that this Court has already considered this case a matter of further inquiry in bail granting order dated 29-10-2008. Learned counsel also contends that the case of the present petitioner is also identical to the case of co-accused who has already been allowed bail by this Court vide Crl.
Misc.No,2794-B/2008 on 29-10-2008.
3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this prayer on the ground that the trial has almost concluded. On formal witness and the I.O. Are yet to be examined. Prosecution is likely to conclude its evidence within one month. It has further been asserted that at this belated stage, concession of bail may not be extended to the petitioner.
4. Considering the bail granting order dated 29-10-2008 of co-accused and without discussing the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars and he is entitled to the same concession which has already been extended to his co-accused.
5. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. The learned trial Court, is expected to expedite the trial and conclude it within a period of one month from the receipt of this order.