Ghulam Murtaza vs State, etc
This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail after the petitioner's earlier application was dismissed by the subordinate court in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saddar Chichawatni, District Sahiwal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where no fatal injury to the deceased is attributed to him, and the specific injury attributed falls under a bailable provision. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was not attributed any role in the murder of the deceased and the injury attributed to him falls under Section 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is bailable, coupled with the fact that investigation is complete and his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose, the petition should be allowed. The court laid down the principle that liberty is a precious right not to be curtailed indefinitely and that tentative assessment of the record showing an offense not prohibiting bail warrants the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no fatal injury to the deceased is attributed to him and the specific injury attributed falls under a bailable section?
- Whether the recovery of a weapon of offence whose evidentiary value is yet to be determined at trial constitutes a ground to withhold post-arrest bail?
- Does the completion of investigation and the lack of necessity for further incarceration justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
After having been fizzled out in obtaining the relief of post arrest bail from the learned subordinate Court, by means of instant petition, the petitioner has sought for the same relief in a case registered vide FIR No. 323, dated 10.07.2019, offence under Sections 302, 324, 109, 34, PPC, at Police Station Saddar Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, at the instance of Respondent No. 2/complainant.
2. Concisely , the prosecution story as contained in the crime report is that on 10.07.2019 at about 7.30, a.m. he alongwith his co-accused while armed with fire-arms weapons in prosecution of their common object/intention committed murder of son of the complainant namely Muhammad Hasnain and caused injuries to Niaz Ahmad and Fakhar Iqbal, the injured PWs. With specificity the role attributed to the petitioner is that he while armed with gun .12 bore made fire shot hitting Niaz Ahmad, the injured PW on his left leg. Hence, instant case was registered.
3. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. Record perused.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is straightaway observed that that- no injury towards the deceased is attributed to the petitioner during the course of commission of crime, however , only injury attributed to him to injured PW Niaz Ahmad which comes within the mischief of Section 337-F(i), PPC which is bailable one. So far as arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that recovery of weapon of offence has been affected from him is concerned, its evidentiary value would be seen by the learned trial Court after recording of prosecution evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and investigation being complete his person is no more required by the police for further investigation. His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose. Liberty of a person is a precious right which cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period. The culpability of the petitioner as well as evidentiary value of the recovery would be seen by the learned trial Court during trial after recording of prosecution evidence. Resultantly , the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
5. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that above observation are tentative in nature and will not cause any prejudice to any of the party. Further, clarified that in case the petitioner does not co-operate in the conclusion of trial, then the learned trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner in accordance with law.