MUHAMMAD ASLAM, ETC. vs THE STATE, ETC
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of murder and rioting. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the specific allegations of firing at the deceased and their subsequent status as fugitives from justice for approximately eight months. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to make out a case for bail. The Court observed that the petitioners were specifically named in the FIR with specific roles assigned, and their prolonged abscondence undermined the police opinion suggesting their absence at the scene. The Court established the principle that where specific roles of firing are attributed to the accused and they have remained fugitives from law for a significant period, bail is not warranted, and the determination of their presence at the scene is a matter for the trial court to decide after recording evidence.
- Does the status of an accused as a fugitive from law for a significant period impact the consideration of a bail application?
- Can the Supreme Court grant bail when the accused is specifically named in the FIR with a specific role of firing attributed to them?
- Is the police opinion regarding the absence of an accused at the scene of the crime binding on the court during bail proceedings?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Petitioners seek bail after arrest in case FIR No, 51, dated 16.2.2015, offence under sections 302, 148, 149, PPC, registered at P.S. Saddar, District Bhakkar.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioners, as per the FIR, is that they alongwith their co-accused, while armed with pistols .30 bore attacked the complainant party. Co-accused Abid Hussain raised lalkara to avenge the murder of his brother and fired multiple shots which hit the deceased Nazir Hussain @ Papu on various parts of his body. The fire shot by petitioner No, 1 Muhammad Aslam hit the deceased on his ribs on the right side whereas the fire shot by petitioner No, 2 Khizar Abbas hit the deceased on his left cheek.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent No, 2, learned Law Officer and perusing the available record with their assistance, it has been noted by us that petitioners are specifically named in the FIR. Specific role of firing at the deceased has been assigned to them. The petitioners, as confirmed by the learned Law Officer, remained fugitive from law for about 8 months. In the circumstances, the police opinion regarding their absence at the time of occurrence has not found by us to be based on solid reasons. Even otherwise, it is for the learned Trial Court to determine after recording evidence pro and contra as to whether the petitioners were present at the spot at the time of unfortunate incident or not. The trial of the case has already commenced and statements of some of the prosecution witnesses have since been recorded. In the circumstance, we are of the view that petitioners have not been able to make out a case for grant of bail.
4. For the foregoing reasons, this petition having no merit is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.