Muhammad Aslam Javed vs The State and others
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Muhammad Aslam Javed, who was charged under Sections 302, 324, 34, 337-D, 337-F(v), and 336 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was assigned the role of 'guarding' the scene of the crime without firing any shots or causing injuries, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's involvement required further inquiry, as the prosecution failed to attribute any specific overt act of violence to him. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the petitioner's continued detention served no useful purpose given the lack of progress in the trial. The key principles laid down are that the benefit of doubt at the bail stage must be considered, that the mere heinousness of an offence is insufficient to deny bail, and that bail should not be refused as a form of punishment, especially when the accused's guilt remains a matter for further probe.
- Is an accused person entitled to bail when the only role assigned in the FIR is guarding the scene of the crime without causing injury?
- Does the heinous nature of an offence alone justify the refusal of bail?
- Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete and there is no progress in the trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SARDAR MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ DOGAR, J. Through this petition, Muhammad Aslam Javed, the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.801/2024, dated 14.5.2024, registered for the offences under sections 302, 324, 34, 337-D, 337-F(v), 336 P.P.C with the Police Station Baghdad-ul- Jadeed, District Bahawalpur.
2. Facts in brief, as per FIR are that the petitioner along with other co-accused, while armed with deadly weapons and with their common intention, committed murders of Mst. Tabassum Bibi and Mst. Sidra Bibi (sister and niece of complainant) and also opened fire to the Dr. Khurram Shahzad (nephew of complainant) with the intention to commit his murder. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was guarding the incident.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the grounds of instant bail petition, prayed for acceptance of the same.
4. Conversely, learned ADPP for the State duly assisted by learned counsel for the complainant resisted this bail petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. Arguments heard, record perused.
6. After hearing the arguments and perusing the record, it came on surface that in the FIR the petitioner has been assigned role of "guarding" at the time of occurrence. Admittedly, none from the complainant side sustained any injury due to the alleged act of petitioner as the petitioner has not opened any fire shot on any person on the doleful day. Therefore, instant case to the extent of involvement of petitioner is doubtful and requires further probe and inquiry in terms of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C as per law laid down by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases reported as "Ehsanullah v. The State" (2012 SCMR 1137), "Mitho Pitafi v. The State" (2009 SCMR 299) and "Oamar alias Mitho v. The State and others" (PLD 2012 SC 222). The benefit of doubt even at bail stage must be taken into consideration. Reliance is placed on case laws "Muhammad Ejaz v. The State" (2022 SCMR 1271),"Muhammad Arshad v. The State" (2022 SCMR 1555) and "Fahad Hussain v. The State" (2023 SCMR 364).
7. The investigation of the case is complete, the petitioner is no more required for purpose of investigation. The petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest but there is no progress in the trial so far. Therefore, further detention of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.
8. Mere heinousness of the offence is not sufficient to take away discretion of the Court to grant bail which is never refused as a punishment and there is no legal or moral compulsion to keep a person in jail. The ultimate conviction and incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by mistaken relief of bail but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to the accused for his unjustified incarceration if he is acquitted ultimately.
9. For the above reasons, without touching the other merits of the case at this stage, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
10. It is, however, clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature, and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.