Jan Muhammad and another vs The State
This petition for post-arrest bail was filed by the petitioners, who were booked under sections 324, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the refusal of bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners contended that the case was false, based on guesswork, and involved a night occurrence where identification was impossible, arguing that the case warranted further inquiry. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioners were directly charged in the FIR with specific roles in causing injuries, recoveries were effected, and the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that because the petitioners were directly charged, recoveries were made, co-accused had been refused bail, and the petitioners had remained absconders, no case for bail was made out. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within two months, granting the petitioners liberty to file a fresh application if the trial was not concluded within that timeframe.
- Does an offence under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted to an accused who has remained an absconder for a significant period?
- Is a trial court required to conclude proceedings within a specific timeframe when a bail petition is dismissed on the grounds of abscondence and direct involvement?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioners have applied for post arrest bail as they have been booked under sections 324/34/109, P.P.C. vide FIR No.24/2017 of Police Station Jaglote dated 24 .08.2017 .
2. The petitioners were refused bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment/order dated 03.09.2019, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case is false and the petitioners have been nominated in the FIR just by guess work by the complainant. The learned counsel further stated that recoveries effected in the instant case are fake and fictitious and have been planted by the I.O. in collusion with the complainant party. The learned counsel further stated that it was a night occurrence and the identification of the culprits was not possible. The case of the petitioners is one of the further inquiry and they deserve the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand the learned Dy. A.G. submitted that the petitioners/ accused are directly charged in the FIR with a specific role of causing injuries to the victim, who charged the accused in his statement and recoveries have been effected from the petitioners. The offence under section 324, P.P.C. carries' 10 years imprisonment, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The bail petition of the petitioners merit dismissal.
5. The petitioners are directly charged in the FIR, with a specific role of causing injuries to the victim, who charged the accused/petitioners in his statement. Recovery of weapon of offence from both the petitioners have been effected in presence of marginal witnesses. Co-accused of the instant case have already been refused bail by this Court. The trial of the case has been commenced. The petitioners/accused remained absconder for a long time and were arrested after hectic efforts by the local police. No case for bail is made out. The bail petition is declined accordingly. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of 2 months positively. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated time, the petitioners will be at liberty to move a fresh bail application.