Rustam Khan vs The State, Etc.
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed on behalf of Rustam Khan, who was incarcerated in connection with F.I.R. No. 79 registered under sections 324, 429, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the ineffective nature of the firing, the bailable nature of the remaining offences, and the grant of bail to a co-accused. The Lahore High Court accepted the bail petition, holding that since no human injury was sustained, the case warranted further inquiry into the applicability of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Furthermore, the court established that the petitioner was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency, as a co-accused had already been granted bail, and reiterated that bail cannot be withheld as a form of preventive punishment.
- Whether ineffective firing where no human injury is caused attracts Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail on the rule of consistency when a co-accused has already been granted bail?
- Can post-arrest bail be refused to an accused as a measure of advance punishment?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 429, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J. - The instant post attest bail has been filed on behalf of Rustam Khan who is behind the bars, in a case arising out of F.I.R. No. 79, dated 7.6.2010, registered in Police Station Khatha Saghraal, District Khushab, under sections 324/429/34, PPC.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the present petitioner levelled by the complainant, in the F.I.R. Is that on 7.6.2010, the present petitioner armed with .12 bore Gun, alongwith his co-accused, namely, Muhammad Hanif, who was also carrying a .12 bore Gun, raised a 'Lalkara' that they will not spare the complainant and thereafter, both the accused made fire bullets on the complainant, who escaped luckily. The complainant also alleged that the present petitioner again fired upon him but the same hit a buffalo causing his death. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be a scuffle, which has taken place between Ghulam Habib and Muhammad Khan in the early hours of the same day.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R.
He further submitted that it is a case of ineffective firing, wherein no one was injured and as such, the provisions of sections 324/34, PPC could not be attracted. He maintained that .12 bore Gun recovered from the present petitioner is a licenced weapon. He argued that the offence falling under Section 429, PPC is bailable. Lastly, he argued that not only the present petitioner is entitled to be released on bail, as his . Case falls within the ambit of further inquiry but also on the rule of consistency as the co-accused/Muhammad Hanif has already been granted bail.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the -learned Deputy Prosecutor- General opposed the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Who repeated bullet fire on the complainant and as such, prima facie has committed an offence falling within the mischief of Section 324, PPC, the punishment of which falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, the motive for the occurrence is not attributed to the present petitioner. The exact relationship of the present petitioner with Ghulam Habib is not mentioned in the F.I.R. Secondly, it is a case of ineffective firing wherein no one was injured except the death of a buffalo. The Rifle, which has been recovered from the present petitioner from the room of his house, is a licenced weapon.
The mere fact that the present petitioner is alleged to have repeated the fire would not bring the case within the mischief of Section 324, PPC. Hence, there are sufficient grounds to enquire further into the guilt of the present petitioner. The Co- accused/Muhammad Hanif has been granted post arrest bail by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 24.6.2010. The present petitioner is also, entitled to the concession of bail following the rule of consistency. Lastly, the present petitioner is behind the bars since 15.6.2010 and his further detention in jail would not advance the case of the present petitioner. Needless to mention here that post arrest bail cannot be refused to an accused as a measure of advance punishment. Resultantly, the instant post arrest bail petition, filed on behalf of Rustam Khan, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.