Fayyaz Ahmad vs Muhammad Akram, Etc.
This criminal petition seeks the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondents No. 1 and 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question revolves around whether the respondents, who were attributed specific roles of raising a lalkara and pointing rifles without causing firearm injuries to the deceased, misused their concession of bail or were wrongly granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that the role ascribed to the respondents was merely of raising a lalkara and extending threats, that they were found innocent during the investigation, and that the allegations of bail misuse were unsubstantiated. The court established that the criteria for granting bail differ from those for cancelling bail, and absent perverse, shocking, or illegal orders, post-arrest bail will not be cancelled. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.
- Whether the role of raising a lalkara and pointing a firearm without causing injury warrants the cancellation of post-arrest bail?
- Does the finding of innocence during police investigation constitute a valid ground for sustaining post-arrest bail?
- What is the distinction between the criteria for the grant of bail and the criteria for the cancellation of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - The petitioner, through this petition, seeks cancellation of post-arrest to respondents No. 1&2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar in case F.I.R. No. 454, dated 09.12.2012 registered under Sections 302/34, P.P.C, at Police Station Macload Gang, District Bahawalnagar.
2. Precisely the prosecution case is that on the fateful night i.e. 09.12.2012 at about' 12:30 (night)
Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Faruq, respondents No. 1 & 2 armed with rifles alongwith others forcibly entered the house of the complainant by raising lalkara to teach a lesson for demanding money to father of the petitioner. Meanwhile, Muhammad Mansha fired a shot at the left side of chest of his father whereas both the respondents Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Faruq armed with firearms extended threat to the complainant not to come nearby or to face death. Thereafter they escaped from the spot after scaling over the wall.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondents No. 1&2 are specifically nominated in the F.I.R, with the specific role of raising lalakara and extending threats to the complainant by teaching him a lesson of demanding of money; that co-accused of respondents No. 2&3 fired shot with his pistol hitting the deceased at the right side of his chest in the presence of the respondents; that allegation against respondents No. 1 &2 is that they pointed their rifles towards the complainant; that the motive is attributed to respondent No. 2 Muhammad Farooqi that the respondents have misused the concession of bail by threatening the petitioner and affidavits have been sworn in.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record attached with this petition.
5. Admittedly role ascribed to respondents No. 1&2 is of simply raising lalkara, extending threats to their complainant and the witnesses by pointing their rifles towards them. No role is attributed to them for causing injury to the deceased. Respondents No. 1&2 have been found innocent during the course of investigation vide Zimni No. 41, dated 11.04.2013. The affidavits so attached with this petition do not substantiate the plea raised by the petitioner regarding misuse of concession of bail as the same do not reflect any time and place of extending threats to the petitioner. Grant of bail and cancellation of bail has different criteria. The impugned order does not appear to be perverse, shocking or illegal, In this view of the matter, this petition having no merit is dismissed in limine.