Muhammad Shafi, etc. vs The State, etc.
The accused-petitioners filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 161 of 2013 registered under Sections 302, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kala, District D.G. Khan, involving the murder of three persons. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were attributed a specific role of raising a commanding lalkara, facilitating the offense, and remaining fugitive from law as proclaimed offenders for a prolonged period, were entitled to post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to the concession of bail, noting their specific nomination in the FIR, active facilitation, abscondance, and the availability of sufficient incriminating evidence connecting them to the crime. The key principles laid down include that accused persons who remain fugitive from law and are declared proclaimed offenders, facing serious allegations with supporting incriminating evidence and attribution of motive, do not make out a case for post-arrest bail at the early stages of trial.
- Are accused persons who remain fugitive from law and are declared proclaimed offenders entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does raising a commanding lalkara and facilitating co-accused in a murder case constitute sufficient ground to deny post-arrest bail?
- Whether sufficient incriminating evidence and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. connect an accused to the crime to disentitle them to bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Muhammad Shafi & Allah Bakhsh, the accused-petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case FIR No.161- 2013 dated 16.06.2013, registered under Sections 302, 148/149 & 109 PPC, at Police Station Kala, District D.G. Khan.
2. The brief allegation against the petitioners is that at the time of occurrence, they raised commanding lakara to their co-accused, who were already armed with Kalashnikovs, make firing upon Ghulam Akbar, etc. For committing their murder, so they resorted firing desperately as a result of which three persons namely Ghulam Akbar, Ghulam Hussain and Ijaz Hussain lost their lives.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Admittedly, the petitioners are nominated accused of the FIR with specific role of raising commanding lalkara to their co-accused and facilitating them for the commission of offence.
There-after Ghulam Shabbir son of petitioner No.2 and Nazim, grand-son co-accused of petitioners resorted firing resulting into death of three innocent persons. It is mentioned in the FIR that the petitioners were present at the scene of occurrence while making lalkara and as such offence under Section 114 PPC is made out. The motive is also attributed to the present petitioners.
5. The petitioners willfully remained fugitive from law for about one year and seven months and they were declared proclaimed offenders after initiating the proceedings under Section 87/88 Cr.P.C. And challan under Section 512 Cr.P.C. Against them has been submitted before the learned trial Court and there is no progress in the trial due to their abscondance. More-over, Ashiq son & Nazim grand-son of petitioner No.1 and Ghulam Shabbir son of petitioner No.2 are still proclaimed offenders.
6. Prima-facie, the petitioners appear to be hardened and desperate criminal mind, who have rightly been involved by the complainant in this case. All the prosecution witnesses fully supported the version of the complainant in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Sufficient incriminating evidence is available on record against the petitioners to connect them with the offence committed by them, In such circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail at this early stage. In this regard, reliance can be placed reported as "Zafar Hussain. Vs. The State and another" (2014 SCM R 1591), "Khalida Bibi. Vs. Nadeem Baig." (PLD 2009 S.C. 440) & "Chiragh Din and others. Vs. The State" (PLD 1967 S.C. 340).
7. During the investigation, the petitioners have been found fully involved and declared guilty in the commission of crime. There is nothing on record that false criminal proceedings have initiated against the petitioners with malafide intention and ulterior motive of the complainant as the motive is also attributed to them.
8. Case law referred by learned counsel for the petitioners reported as "Muhammad Aslam. Vs. Nazar Khan and another" (2012 SCM R, 138) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
In view of above circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners and resultantly, the instant bail petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed.