Muhammad Shafique vs The State and another
This criminal petition arises from an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Shafique, who was charged under sections 302/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have held the deceased while a co-accused inflicted fatal injuries, was entitled to bail given the specific facts and the principle of consistency. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that he was not attributed any specific injury to the deceased and that a co-accused with a similar role had already been granted bail. The Court emphasized that mere involvement in a heinous offense does not preclude the grant of bail when a case for further inquiry is made out. The key principle laid down is that where a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail, the rule of consistency dictates that the petitioner should be granted the same concession, especially when the case calls for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused with a similar role in a murder case has already been granted bail?
- Is the mere allegation of holding a victim during a murder sufficient to deny bail when no injury is attributed to the accused?
- Does the heinous nature of an offense automatically preclude the grant of bail if the case otherwise calls for further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through this petition Muhammad Shafique petitioner has sought bail after arrest in case FIR No. 270/14, dated 06.11.2014 registered at Police Station Tanda, District Gujrat in respect of offences under sections 302/109/34, PPC.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by this Court that the allegation leveled against the petitioner in the FIR is that he has caught hold the arms of deceased namely Mst. Sumera Bibi daughter-in-law of the complainant and in this way facilitated his co-accused Ghulam Abbas who has inflicted churri blows to her.
Admittedly according to narration of the FIR itself the petitioner has not been attributed any injury to the deceased during the occurrence. The petitioner is real brother of the principal accused namely Ghulam Abbas and taking into consideration the locale and number of injuries on the body of deceased there was no need to hold deceased from arms, therefore, possibility of false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out of consideration. It is trend in our society that complainant party tried to entangle maximum person from accused side so that nobody would remain behind to pursue the matter. A co-accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Nadeem who has allegedly caught-hold the deceased from legs has already been allowed bail by the learned trial court. The case of the petitioner is at par to that of his co-accused namely Muhammad Nadeem who had already been allowed bail by the learned trial court so the petitioner also deserves for the same concession in view of rule of consistency. Mere involvement in a heinousness offence is not ground to withheld the discretion in favour of an accused person who otherwise makes out a good case for grant of bail. Similarly the question of vicarious liability of the petitioner for committing the murder of deceased shall also be determined by the learned trial court after record evidence in this case. The petitioner is previous non-convict, investigation of this case qua the petitioner is complete, he is behind the bars since his arrest, nothing has been recovered from him, thus, no useful purpose would be served by continuously keeping him under incarceration.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petitioner is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.
100000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.