MUHAMMAD BILAL vs MUHAMMAD ABBAS and others
The petitioner Muhammad Bilal sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 arising from F.I.R. No. 84 of 2011. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his plea of alibi accepted during police investigation, the non-recovery of any weapon from him, and his status as an absconder. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner did not perform any overt act, no weapon was recovered from him, the single crime empty recovered corroborated his non-firing role, and his plea of alibi was verified by the police, a case for further inquiry was made out, and mere absconsion did not warrant refusal of bail. The court laid down the principle that corroborative recovery supporting a non-firing role combined with a police-verified plea of alibi outweighs mere absconsion and warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether mere absconsion of an accused is sufficient ground for refusing post-arrest bail when a case for further inquiry is made out?
- Does the non-recovery of a weapon attributed to an accused who is alleged to have only raised a lalkara and guarded co-accused strengthen a case for bail?
- Whether a police-verified plea of alibi during investigation can form the basis for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---The petitioner Muhammad Bilal through the instant criminal miscellaneous petition seeks his release on bail in case arising out of F.I.R.No,84 of 2011, dated 26-2-2011 registered under sections 302, 109 and 34, P.P.C. With Police Station Changa Manga, District Kasur having the allegation that the petitioner while armed with pistol .30 bore raised lalkara that if any one came near would not be spared while his co-accused Muhammad Arif fired a shot on Abdul Wahid son of the complainant with his pistol .30 bore.
2. It is contended that the petitioner during the investigation has been found innocent and his plea of alibi was accepted by the Police, which is based upon sound evidence; that the pistol .30 bore as alleged in the F.I.R. Was not recovered from the petitioner and that the co-accused Mst. Bashiran Bibi has been admitted to bail by this Court.
3. The petition has been opposed by the learned D.P.-G. By arguing that the petitioner is duly nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role, which version of the prosecution is duly supported by the statements of the P.Ws., who fully implicated the petitioner for the offence alleged in the F.I.R. And that the petitioner remained fugitive from law as such is not entitled for the concession of bail.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. As per prosecution case the petitioner did not perform any overt act towards the occurrence. ' He was shown to be armed with pistol .30 bore and guarded his co-accused while he made firing at the deceased of the case but non-recovery of pistol .30 bore at the instance of the petitioner negates the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. The Police had collected only one empty from the place of occurrence, which was fired by co-accused Muhammad Arif from his pistol .30 bore at deceased Abdul Wahid. The recovery of single empty of crime weapon further strengthened. The case of the petitioner that he did not fire at the time of occurrence. The petitioner has raised the plea of alibi mentioning that at the time of occurrence he was offering prayer in the mosque, which fact was supported by the statements of the witnesses and the Police had verified the version of the petitioner and cleared him from the instant case. Mere absconsion of the petitioner is no ground for refusing bail, which in the given circumstances is made out from the facts of the case.
6. In view of the above, the petition is accepted and the petitioner Muhammad Bilal is admitted to bail on furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs,100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.