Muhammad Siddique vs The State
This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Muhammad Siddique alias Siddique seeking post-arrest bail in crime No. 51 of 2007 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 337-H(2), and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Rustam, District Sheikhupura. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of allegedly ineffective firing, lack of recovery, and the rule of consistency with a co-accused who was granted bail. The High Court held that the applicant was specifically named in the F.I.R. with a distinct role of firing directly at the deceased, which was corroborated by ocular testimony and the post-mortem report, distinguishing his case from the co-accused who was assigned only ineffective firing. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, holding that reasonable grounds existed to believe the applicant was guilty of an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether an accused specifically named in the F.I.R. with a direct role of firing at the deceased is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused claim bail on the ground of parity when the co-accused's case is distinguishable due to an allegation of ineffective firing?
- Does the presence of reasonable grounds connecting the accused to an offence within the prohibitory clause bar the grant of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, J. - By this application, applicant Muhammad Siddique alias Siddique seeks bail in respect of crime No. 51 of 2007 registered at Police Station, Rustam, District Sheikhupura for offence under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 337-H(2), 109, P.P.C.
2. It is the case of prosecution that on the day of incident i. e. 13.8.2007 the complainant alongwith P.Ws. Namely, Abdul Karim, Mumtaz, Khadim Hussain alias Sobo were coming back-on the motorcycle to their village after doing their business of cattle, they were confronted by accused persons namely, Ali Hassan, Wahab both armed with Repeaters, Siddique armed with gun, Gul Hassan, Sukhio and Islam armed with Kalashnikovs. It is alleged that accused Ali Hassan fired from his Repeater at Abdul Karim, who raised cries and fell down on the ground. In the meanwhile applicant Siddique is alleged to have fired from his gun at Abdul Karim which also hit him. The injured is said to have died at the spot.
3. After usual investigation the case was challaned and the applicant is facing his trial in the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura'. The applicant moved application for his release on bail but the same was rejected vide order dated 4.1.2008. Hence the instance application.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned State counsel.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely involved in the matter as the main allegation is against co-accused Ali Hassan with whose firing the deceased fell down while the applicant is alleged to have fired from his gun which is not fatal while the applicant is alleged to have fired from his gun which is not fatal one. He was further contended that there is enmity in-between the parties which is admitted by the complainant himself in the F.I.R. He further contended that no recovery of any crime weapon is alleged from the applicant and the case of applicant is identical to that of coaccused Islam who has been granted bail by this Court on 12.9.2008 hence the applicant is entitled to the same relief. He has therefore, prayed for grant of bail to applicant.
6. Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri learned State counsel while opposing the bail application submitted that, the applicant/accused is alleged to have directly fired at the deceased from his gun. He has been named in the F.I.R. And the incident is taken place at 2.00 p.m. Of the day. He further contended that the case of co-accused Islam is quite distinguishable from the case of present applicant hence he is not entitled to the relief of bail.
7. The name of the applicant is appearing in the F.I.R. With specific role. The ocular evidence is available against the applicant.' The injury caused to the deceased Abdul Karim is confirmed from post-mortem report. The P.Ws. Have fully supported the case of complainant, the case of accused Islam is different from the present applicant as the allegation against him is only of ineffective firing; Keeping in view the circumstances of the case it cannot be said that there was no reasonable ground for believing that the applicant has not committed any offence falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. The bail application was dismissed by short order dated 12.1.2009. The above are the reasons.