IQBAL vs THE STATE
This criminal bail application is filed on behalf of the applicant/accused Iqbal seeking post-arrest bail in Sessions Case arising out of F.I.R. registered under sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the murder of Mst. Mumtaz allegedly committed under the guise of family honour or Karo-kari. The core legal question revolves around whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency with co-accused who were granted bail and because the evidence against him primarily attracts section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 rather than section 302. The court held that the applicant is not entitled to bail, noting that he furnished information leading to the recovery of the deceased's buried body, distinguishing his role from the co-accused. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously within two months.
- Whether an accused who leads to the recovery of a dead body is entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency when co-accused have been granted bail?
- Does an allegation falling primarily under section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 automatically warrant the grant of post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Can bail be refused when the accused is specifically connected to the crime through a disclosure leading to the recovery of evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SYED ZAKIR HUSSAIN, J.--This bail application is moved on behalf of the applicant/accused Iqbal for his being enlarged on bail in the Sessions Case No,447 of 2008 (The State v. Meenhal and another) based on the F.I.R. No,221 of 2008, under sections 302, 201 and 34 P.P.C. lodged with the Police Station T. M. Khan, in respect of the murder of the deceased Mst. Mumtaz, which is reported to have taken plade on the given date and time, on account of family honour/Karokari-like reason(s). I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.-G. for the State. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, is this that the co-accused are already, on bail and the case of the present accused is lighter than that of others, since by what has been collected as piece of evidence against him during the course of the investigation, would at the most, constitute an act of concealment of crime evidence, which falls within the ambit of the provisions of section 201 P.P.C., which involves maximum punishment upto seven years. The learned counsel also points out that there is no direct evidence of murder of the deceased against any of the nominated or charge-sheeted accused including the applicant, who is the real brother of the deceased while others, are her close relations, whereas the complainant of the case, is her late husband's brother who is also complainant in the case, of murder of his brother Sadiq (the late husband of deceased Mst. Mumtaz), in which, almost, the same accused persons are implicated as culprits of the crime.
2. The learned A.P.-G. contended that the applicant is the only person who furnished information not only as to the particulars of the other culprits but also led the police to and caused the dead body of the deceased. Mst Mumtaz secured from the place where the same had been buried after commission of the said murder and as such, according to the learned A.P.-G., the learned trial Court, rightly refused to A exercise its discretion in the case of the applicant in bail matter, whereas the bail of the others, according to him, took place on the point that there was no direct evidence and that they were implicated and charge sheeted in the case simply on the aforesaid disclosure of their involvement, and as such, their case appeared to be one of further enquiry. He strongly opposes the grant of bail to the applicant in the circumstances. The charge has been framed by the trial Court in the case, and the case is at the stage of evidence.
3. In these circumstances, I am of the A view that the case of the applicant is not that of grant of bail and therefore, I reject this application, but I direct the learned trial Court to give speedy trial to the applicant and dispose the case of on merits within next two months.