ARSHAD vs THE STATE and anothers
The petitioner, Arshad, sought post-arrest bail after being charged in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Band Kurai, D.I. Khan, for the murder of the complainant's son. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was attributed only an ineffective role of firing and a single firearm injury was found on the deceased, attributable to a co-accused. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under the law, as no empty was recovered from his place, the site plan attributed a firearm in a vague term, and only one firearm injury appeared on the body of the deceased. The court laid down the principle that where an accused is assigned an ineffective role and the single fatal injury corresponds to a co-accused, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when assigned only an ineffective role in a crime involving a single fatal injury?
- Does attribution of a firearm in vague terms in the site plan constitute grounds for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Whether the absence of recovery of incriminating articles or empties from an accused justifies the grant of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' KHALID MEHMOOD, J.-- Petitioner, namely, Arshad son of Muhammad Ashiq, having failed to secure his release on bail in the lower Courts, has approached this Court for seeking the same relief.
2. Short facts of the instant case are that the accused/petitioner was charged in case F.I.R. No.59 dated 23-6-2011 registered under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. Police Station, Band Kurai, D.I.Khan. In the F.I.R. The accused/ petitioner was charged by the complainant for murder of his son namely Asmatullah.
3. Complainant and Mehtab Bibi in person present.
4. Learned counsel for the accused/ petitioner contended that the complainant is not eye-witness in the present case and the no effective role has been attributed to the present accused/petitioner and the deceased who have received a single shot that too of .12 bore shotgun cannot be attributed to the accused/petitioner. He argued that in the site plan no kind of weapon has been attributed to the accused/petitioner whereas other co-accused have been shown with specific role and specific kind of weapons. He further argued that no incriminating articles have been recovered from the accused/petitioner and there is no corroboratory evidence available against him, hence in the prevailing circumstances the accused/petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned State counsel argued that the accused/petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. He contended that the report was promptly lodged and being daylight occurrence the accused/ petitioner was identified by complainant, therefore, he is not entitled to concession of bail.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. Perusal of record reveals that the accused/petitioner has been attributed only role of ineffective firing. Other two 'accused Abdur Rahman and Rabistan have given effective role. In the site plan firearm in a vague term has been attributed to the petitioner whereas for Other accused kind of arms had specifically been mentioned. No empty has been recovered from the place of accused/petitioner and there is only one firearm injury on the body of deceased that too of .12 bore shotgun which apparently suggests that the victim was done to death by one co-accused which can only be ascertained at the stage of trial. Without touching merit of the case, the accused/ petitioner had made out a case of further inquiry.
8. In' the light of the above circumstances, the accused/petitioner is allowed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3,00,000 (three lacs) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, D.I. Khan. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhsin Islam & salih Islam vs the State & others 2017 PHC 567
- MUHSIN ISLAM and another vs The STATE and 2 others 2018 MLD 428