ZAHOOR KHAN and anothers vs The STATE and another
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.46 of 2011 registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Yousafwala, District Sahiwal. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail when they were nominated in the F.I.R. but no specific overt act or injury was attributed to them, and the investigation report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 implicated a different set of accused. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the applicability of sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to the petitioners required further inquiry, particularly since no overt act was attributed and there was no substantial progress in the trial. The key principle laid down is that an accused person cannot be kept confined for an indefinite period as a measure of advance punishment when their role falls within the scope of further inquiry and the trial is not making substantial progress.
- Are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail when nominated in the F.I.R. without any attributed overt acts or injuries?
- Does the submission of an investigation report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against a different set of accused warrant further inquiry into the applicability of sections 148 and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an accused be kept in incarceration for an indefinite period awaiting trial as a measure of advance punishment?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---Petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.46 of 2011 dated 5- 2-2011 under sections 302, 148, 149 P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Yousafwala, District Sahiwal, wherein, the precise allegation against the petitioners is that at the time of mounting of assault of their co-accused, the petitioners remained present at the place of occurrence.
2. It is argued by learned counsel that petitioners have been falsely involved in this case as a result of widened net. Further argued that although the petitioners have been nominated in the F.I.R. But no overt act is attributed to them, as no injury was caused by the petitioners to anyone. It is further argued that the version of the complainant has been found incorrect during the course of investigation and report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted against a different set of accused. The learned counsel has next contended that petitioners are behind the bars and after investigation report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted, but there is no substantial progress in the trial.
3. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail on the ground that petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R., as such, no case for bail is made out at this stage.
4. Arguments 'heard. Record perused.
5. A bare perusal of the F.I.R. Would show that although both the petitioners have been nominated in the F.I.R., but no overt act has been attributed to them and they have been shown to be merely present at the place of occurrence. It has also come on the record that version of the complainant has not been found wholly truth during the course of investigation and report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted against a different set of accused. In these circumstances, applicability of, offence under section 148/149, P.P.C. To the extent of the petitioners requires further inquiry.
Additionally, the petitioners are behind the bars, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been sent to court, but there is no substantial progress in the trial. The petitioners cannot be kept confined for an indefinite period as a measure of advance punishment. Consequently, this petition is accepted and petitioners are admitted to bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Duty Judge.