MUHAMMAD IQBAL SHAH vs STATE and another
The petitioner Muhammad Iqbal Shah sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 20 dated 25.01.2018 registered under Sections 302/109/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Satgarah, District Okara. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry and the principle of consistency, given that two co-accused were assigned specific firearm injuries to the head of the deceased whereas the postmortem report showed only a single entry wound on the head. The Lahore High Court held that the case against the petitioner called for further inquiry because it was yet to be determined at trial which accused caused the single head injury, and the petitioner's case was at par with a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The court laid down the principle that where multiple accused are attributed a single injury to the deceased and a co-accused in a similar situation has been granted bail, the rule of consistency applies and entitles the remaining accused to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been granted bail?
- Does a contradiction between the number of firearm injuries attributed to multiple accused and the single entry wound reported in the postmortem report make the case one of further inquiry?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted when it is yet to be determined at trial which of the accused caused the fatal injury to the deceased?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner Muhammad Iqbal Shah through the instant petition seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 20 dated 25.01.2018 registered at P .s: Satgarah District Okara of fences under Sections 302/109/148/149 of PPC.
2. Arguments heard. Record perused.
3. As per brief allegations levelled in the FIR, on the intervening night of 24/25.01.2018 at about 01:15 a.m. (night), Mst. Sajida Perveen complainant came to see her daughter Mst. Sarwar Bibi deceased at her house. At the mid- night, she (complainant) along with the PWs woke up on the report of fire shot and saw that Muhammad Ahsan co- accused while armed with repeater gun, made a fire shot which landed on the head of her daughter , namely , Mst.
Sarwar Bibi. The second fire shot was made by Muhammad Iqbal petitioner with repeater gun which also landed on the head of Mst. Sarwar Bibi deceased. The third fire shot made by Muhamma d Saleem co-accused with his Carbine landed on the left flank of Mst. Sarwar Bibi deceased who succumbed to the abovementioned injuries at the spot. Motive behind the occurrence was the illicit relationship between the petitioner and one Mst. Meraj Bibi, due to which the petitioner and his wife Mst. Sarwar Bibi deceased had a rift with each other .
4. I have noted that for the murder of one deceased, namely , Mst. Sarwar Bibi, the complainant has implicated, as many as, four nominated and two unknown accused persons i,e, total six accused persons in this case Out of the said six accused persons, three accused persons have been assigned the specific roles of making firearm injuries on the body of Mst. Sarwar Bibi deceased . It is noteworthy that the role of making one fire shot each on the head of Mst. Sarwar Bibi deceased was attributed to Muhammad Iqbal Shah petitioner and Muhammad Ahsan co-accused but according to the postmortem report of Mst. Sarwar Bibi deceased, there was only one entry wound i,e, injury No, 1 on her head. This Court has already granted post arrest bail to the abovementioned co-accused, namely , Muhammad Ahsan vide order dated 26.11.2018 in Crl. Misc. No 235279-B of 2018, inter-alia, on the ground that the prosecution has attributed two injurie s with repeater gun at the head of Mst. Sarwar Bibi deceased to two accused persons, namely , Muhammad Ahsan co-accused and Muhammad Iqbal Shah petitioner , whereas, there was only one entry wound on the head of the deceased therefore, it is still to be determined in this case during the trial that as to whether the single injury on the head of the deceased was caused by the present petitioner or the abovementioned co-accused, namely , Muhammad Ahsan. The case of the petitioner is at par with the case of abovementioned Muhammad Ahsan co-accused therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the relief of, post arrest bail on the principle of consistency . Although it is argued by the learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that according to the police investigation, abovementioned Muhammad Ahsan co-accused had not made any fire shot at the deceased, whereas, the petitioner has been found guilty and 12 bore gun has been recovered from his possession but the fact remains that one injury on the head of the deceased has been assigned to two accused persons therefore, it is difficult to determine at this stage that as to whether the said injury has been caused by the petitioner or the abovementioned co-accused. It is further noteworthy that as per prosecution case four empties were recovered from the spot and according to the report of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore, all the said empties were found to be fired from the gun recovered at the instance of Muhammad Saleem co-accused.
5. Keeping in view all the aforementioned facts, prosecution case against the petitioner is one of further inquiry therefore, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 200,000/-(Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.