SHAN vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 450 of 2014 registered under Sections 302, 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not named in the FIR, was assigned only the role of aerial firing during an identification parade, and co-accused with similar roles had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail. The court held that the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under the principle of consistency, noting that co-accused with similar roles were granted bail, the injured witness did not join the identification parade or level allegations under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the petitioner had been incarcerated for a significant period without any need for further investigation.
- Is an accused not named in the FIR and assigned only the role of aerial firing entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail?
- Does the failure of an injured witness to join an identification parade support the grant of bail to an accused?
- Can an accused be kept behind bars indefinitely for the purpose of trial when further investigation is no longer required?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Shan/petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 450 of 2014 registered at Police Station Saddar Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran, for offences under Sections 302, 324 & 34, PPC.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I have observed as under: i) Petitioner is not named in the FIR; ii) He was subsequently identified by the PWs during identification parade and role assigned to him is only of aerial firing; iii) Mst. Kalsoom, injured witness did not join the identification parade; iv) She has levelled no allegation against the petitioner in her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. v) Motive is also not attributed to the petitioner; vi) Whether the petitioner actually participated in the occurrence and his vicarious liability is the matter, which will be determined by learned trial Court after recording of evidence; vii) Furthermore, Jamshed and Jaffar co-accused having similar roles have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 22-09-2015 in Crl. Misc. No, 5089-B of 2015; thus, the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief on the principle of consistency; and viii) Petitioner is behind the bars since 02-09-2014; he is no more required for the purpose of further investigation; thus, no useful purpose would be served to keep him behind the bars for indefinite period.
3. In view of the above discussion, I am inclined to accept this petition and admit the petitioner to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac), with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.