MUHAMMAD NAEEM alias NEEMUN vs THE STATE and another
This criminal petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Naeem alias Neemun, who was charged under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an F.I.R. registered at Police Station Sarai Siddhu. The core legal questions were whether a second bail petition is maintainable after the withdrawal of a previous one, and whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the co-accused, who allegedly committed the actual injury, has already been granted bail, and the trial has commenced. The Court held that the petition was maintainable because the previous withdrawal was simpliciter and not argued on merits. Furthermore, the Court granted bail, noting that the petitioner was only accused of firing in the air, whereas the co-accused, who caused the injury, had already been released. The Court affirmed the principle that the mere commencement of a trial does not preclude the grant of bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to the concession, and that consistency in bail matters is required when the petitioner's case is on better footing than that of a co-accused already granted bail.
- Is a second bail petition maintainable if the previous petition was withdrawn without being argued on merits?
- Does the commencement of a trial act as an absolute bar to the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the specific allegation against him is less severe than that of a co-accused who has already been granted bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
'CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Naeem alias Neemun through the instant petition has sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,164 under section 324 read with section 34 P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Sarai Siddhu, Tehsil Kabirwala, District Khanewal on 14-5-2009.
2. The facts of the case were recorded in my order dated 26-10-2009, on the similar petition bearing Crl. Misc. No,3205/B/2009 of his co-accused Ali Imran. I, therefore, avoid to repeat the same here.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he earlier had sought for bail by way of the aforesaid petition but it was withdrawn on the said date i.e, 26- 10-2009 to his extent. The learned counsel for respondent No,2 has contended that the instant application has been made on the same facts, hence it is barred. I am afraid that this contention is not with force in view of the principle enshrined in the case of "Muhammad Riaz v. The State" (2002 SCM R 184) as my said order goes to show that it was a withdrawal simpliciter and that petition was not argued on his behalf at any length. So, there is no bar in bringing the instant petition in view of the above esteemed authority.
4. The only allegation against him in the F.I.R. Is that he had made fire in the air with .30 bore pistol.
There is no other allegation against him in the same. His co-accused Ali Imran to whom pistol shot at the right leg of injured Ghulam Shabbir has been attributed, stood allowed bail vide their afore- referred order of this Court. Hence, I am very much clear in my mind that his case is better than him for the purposes of bail. He, therefore, is entitled to bail on this ground alone. The question of his sharing common intention definitely is to be gone into at trial.
5. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for respondent No,2 that his trial has commenced and so he may not be shown indulgence. Similar aspect was dealt with by me in my order of the said date as regards the case of Ali Imran. It was held therein that mere commencement of trial is no ground to withhold the concession of bail to an accused, when he may, otherwise, be found entitled to the same. In this regard, I place reliance upon the case of "Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another" (PLD 1989 SC 585). I, therefore, find that there is nothing in his way to the grant of the relief to him.
6. I, therefore, accept this petition and allow bail to him subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction) of the learned trial Court.