MUHAMMAD SHAFI-and another vs The STATE and another
This criminal matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Shafi and Allah Bakhsh in case FIR No. 161 of 2013 registered under Sections 302, 148, 149, 109, and subsequently Section 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kala, District D.G. Khan, concerning a triple murder. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail despite being nominated with specific roles of raising a commanding lalkara, harboring a motive, and remaining fugitive from law as proclaimed offenders for a prolonged period. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners, having been declared proclaimed offenders under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and facing sufficient incriminating evidence connecting them to the heinous offense, are hardened criminals not entitled to bail. The court laid down the principle that long abscondance coupled with specific incriminating roles and a prima facie connection to a capital crime disentitles an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused who remained a fugitive from law and was declared a proclaimed offender is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a specific role of raising a commanding lalkara in a murder case constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
- Whether abscondance and initiation of proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the concession of 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
ORDER
' HAFIZ SHAHID NADEEM KAHLOON, J.---Muhammad Shafi and 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 and 109, P.P.C., 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, P.P.C. Is made out. The motive is also attributed to the present petitioners.
5. The petitioners willfully remained fugitive from law for about B one year and seven months and they were declared proclaimed offenders after initiating the proceedings under Sections 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 and 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 v. The State and another" (2014 SCM R 1591), "Khalida Bibi v. Nadeem Baig" (PLD 2009 SC 440) and "Chiragh Din and others v. The State" (PLD 1967 SC 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 mala fide 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 v. 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.