SHERA MASIH vs STATE and another
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, wherein the petitioner Shera Masih seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 376 of 2012 registered at Police Station Saddar Kasur for offences including murder and other charges. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of consistency and parity with a co-accused who was already granted bail, and considering the findings of the police investigation. The court holds that since a co-accused with a similar role was granted bail and the investigation found the petitioner not guilty of the primary capital and heinous offences, the petitioner is entitled to bail on the principle of consistency. The key principle laid down is that an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of parity when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail by the court, and where the investigation does not connect the accused to the main offences.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of parity when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail?
- Does the concession of bail follow if the police investigation finds the accused not guilty of the primary heinous offences charged in the FIR?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 376, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner, Sher Masih seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 376/2012 for offences under Sections 302, 376, 201, 148, 149, PPC registered at Police Station Saddar Kasur District Kasur.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely roped in this case. There is nothing on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. No one saw the occurrence taking place. A co-accused Tariq, with a similar role had been allowed bail by this Court.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner has committed a heinous offence, hence, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
However, in all fairness, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General has pointed out that the petitioner has been found guilty for having committed an offence under Section 201, PPC but not under Sections 302, 376, 148, 149, PPC.
4. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the complainant inspite of the fact that the name of the learned counsel for the complainant duly reflects in the cause list.
5. After hearing the arguments which have been advanced and going through the record of the case, it is clear that no one saw the petitioner committing any offence as referred to in the FIR. The case of the petitioner is at par with that of his co-accused Tariq, who has earlier been allowed bail by this Court on 15.08.2012 in Crl. Misc.9039-B-2012. On the principal of consistency and parity, the petitioner would also be entitled to bail in terms of law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Muhammad Daud and another versus The State and another (2008 S.C.M.R. 173). The learned Deputy Prosecutor General, in all fairness, has pointed out that as per the investigation which has taken place the petitioner is not guilty of having committed an offence under Sections 302, 376, 148, 149, PPC. An assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a previous non convict has not been negated by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General. As the Challan has been submitted before the learned trial Court, it can be inferred that the petitioner is no more required for the investigation of the case.
6. For what has been stated above, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post- arrest bail 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.