MUHAMMAD IMRAN vs The STATE and others
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving double murder, arguing that he was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency because co-accused with similar roles had been granted bail. The petitioner further contended that the case involved a counter-version. The complainant and the State opposed the petition, highlighting that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIRs, found guilty during the police investigation, and had a criminal history, whereas the co-accused who received bail were exonerated by the police under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from the co-accused on the facts, as the petitioner had a specific role, incriminating recovery, and a motive attributed to him. The Court affirmed that bail decisions are fact-specific and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate grounds for interference with the lower courts' orders. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the proceedings.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail on the principle of consistency if co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail?
- Does the exoneration of co-accused by the police during investigation under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically entitle the remaining accused to bail?
- Can bail be denied to an accused who is specifically nominated in the FIR and found guilty during the police investigation despite a claim of counter-version?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 169, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---The Petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No,55/2014 dated 28.02.2014 under sections 302, 148 and 149/34, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Ahmed Pur Sial, District Jhang.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Petitioner has been wrongly denied bail after arrest by the learned High Court and the trial Court in a case of counter version. He next contended that the co-accused who alleged to have inflicted injuries on the deceased have been granted bail by the trial Court/High Court whereas the Petitioner was declined bail whose role was also identical to that of those co-accused. He further contended that the Courts have denied bail against the established principles of law enunciated in the cases of Malik Javid lqbal v. The State (PLD 2015 SC 250), Mst. Maria Khan v. The State (2015 SCMR 49), Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique (PLD 1989 SC 585) and Shoaib Mehmood Butt v. Lftikhar Ul Haq (1996 SCM R 1845).
3. As against this, the learned Counsel representing the complainant has contended that the Petitioner was nominated in the FIR with specific role and it was a case of two murders. He next contended that an attempt has been made to confuse the issue. He submits that first FIR No,55 of 2014 was lodged at 3:40 and the time for the offence was shown as 1-1/2 p.m whereas the second FIR No,56 of 2014 was lodged at 7:40 and the time for the offence was 2-1/2. In both the FIRs, the Petitioner has been nominated with specific role and the other co-accused who have been granted bail were exonerated by the Police under section 169, Cr.P.C., as they were found innocent during investigation whereas the Petitioner was found guilty, therefore, the case of the Petitioner is not at par with the case of the co-accused who were granted bail. He further submits that the Petitioner is a hardened criminal and a number of cases are pending against him.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, has supported the impugned judgment and states that the Petitioner has been accused in both the criminal cases and was found guilty by the police during investigation as well.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties besides the learned Law Officer. The citations referred in a criminal case is of no help, as cases are decided on their own facts, therefore, the judgments referred to by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are distinguishable on facts of the present case. We have noticed that the Petitioner has been nominated with specific role and recovery has been effected from him besides the motive which has been attributed to him. The Police has found him guilty during investigation and in both the FIRs the Petitioner has been implicated. There is no case of counter version as argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
We have scanned the material with the assistance of the learned Counsel and do no find any infirmity in the impugned order of the High Court or of the trial Court which could warrant interference by this Court. The direct complaint filed has no bearing on the case of the Petitioner against whom there is sufficient material to deny him bail.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, this Petition is dismissed and leave refused. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Cited by 7 cases
- Muhammad Sajid Hussain vs The State 2021 YLR 402
- Amanullah vs The State 2020 SHC 348
- Mujahid Khan vs The State 2020 SHC 328
- ZOOR ZAMEEN GUL Versus State 2019 PCrLJN 66
- AKHTAR ZAMAN Versus State 2018 YLRN 149
- IMTIAZ ALI KHOKHAR alias TAJI KHOKHAR vs The STATE and another 2017 MLD 1311
- BAHADAR ZEB Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 3