KAMAL vs MUHAMMAD ASIF and another
The accused-petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 391 registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Charsadda, after his bail was refused by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail despite being charged with a serious offense, specifically named in the F.I.R., supported by medical and ocular evidence, and having a history of long unexplained absconsion. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, as there were reasonable grounds connecting him to the crime which carried a punishment falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, compounded by his status as a proclaimed offender. The key principle laid down is that an accused who is a proclaimed offender and whose case falls within the prohibitory clause, supported by consistent ocular and medical evidence, does not merit the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused who has absconded for a long period entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a case falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 disentitle the accused to bail when supported by ocular and medical evidence?
- What is the effect of being declared a proclaimed offender on a bail petition?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Accused-petitioner, Kamal s/o Muhammad seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 391 dated 21/3/2010 under Section 324/34, PPC registered at Police Station, Charsadda which was refused to him by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-V, Charsadda vide his order dated 3.5.2013.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant Muhammad Asif in an injured condition made report of the occurrence on 21.3.2010 in the casualty Ward of DHQ Hospital, Charsadda to the effect that 2/3 days prior to instant occurrence, some one had stolen water pump from his under construction house, for which he suspected Kamran, Kamal and Muhammad and on the day of occurrence at 18.15 hours he alongwith Sareer Ullah and his brother Atif visited the aforesaid person to enquire about the said pump. When they reached near the place of occurrence, they saw accused Kamran; Kamal and Muhammad duly armed with deadly weapons present there and on seeing him and his companions, they started firing at them as a result of which he was hit and got injured while his companions escaped unhurt. After the commission of offence, the accused party decamped from the spot. They being empty handed could not chase them. On the basis of this report in the shape of murasila case vide F.I.R. No, 391 mentioned in the earlier part of the order was registered.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
4. From the narration of the events and perusal of the record it becomes clear that the accused- petitioner has been specifically named in the F.I.R. alongwith his co-accused for causing serious injuries on the person of the complainant. Medical evidence and recovery of three empties of .30- bore pistol recovered from the spot coupled with the ocular evidence fully support the version of the complainant. The occurrence in the instant case has taken place on 21.3.2010 and the accused- petitioner remained absconder for sufficient long time. Warrant of arrest under Section 204, Cr.P.C. and proclamation under Section 87 Cr.P.C. have been issued against him and proceeding under Section 512, Cr.P.C. has been completed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Charsadda vide order dated 29.3.2011 vide which he has been declared proclaimed offender hence, in view of the sufficient evidence available on record and the un-explained long absconsion of the accused- petitioner, there appears reasonable grounds for believing that the accused-petitioner is connected with the commission of offence charged with punishment for which is ten years alongwith fine. Thus, his case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
Resultantly, this bail application being without any substance is dismissed.