AKHTAR HUSSAIN Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Akhtar Hussain, who is accused in F.I.R. No. 304 of 2003 registered under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the allegations of his direct involvement in the murder of the deceased, Husnain Ahmad. The petitioner argued that co-accused had been granted bail and that he had been incarcerated for over a year in an unwitnessed occurrence. The Court, upon reviewing the record, observed that the petitioner was attributed a specific role in the commission of the crime, specifically firing a .12 bore pistol that hit the deceased. Furthermore, the weapon of offense was recovered from the petitioner, and prosecution witnesses had corroborated the prosecution's version of events. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the prohibitory clause of the relevant law, and no grounds existed to grant bail. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether a petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when a specific role of firing the fatal shot is attributed to him?
- Does the recovery of the weapon of offense from the accused preclude the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is bail grantable in a murder case where the accused's case falls within the prohibitory clause and prosecution witnesses support the version of the occurrence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner Akhtar Hussain has moved for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.304 of 2003 dated 17-8-2003 registered under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. at Police Station, Fazilpur District, Rajanpur.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner/accused is that he while armed with .12 bore pistol along with other co accused fired with his pistol which hit Husnain Ahmad deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused Muhammad Amin and Hazoor Bakhsh have been granted bail by the learned trial Court. That petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than one year. That this is an unwitnessed Occurrence and petitioner has falsely been involved in this case.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that the petitioner has been attributed specific role and recovery has been effected from him and the P.Ws. Nasir and Shakeel fully supported the prosecution version.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. Specific role has been attributed to the petitioner/accused and also the weapon of offence has been recovered from him. Further more, petitioner's case falls within prohibitory clause and the P.Ws. namely Nasir and Shakeel fully supported the prosecution version and the petitioner/accused was identified at the time of occurrence. In these circumstances no case for the grant of post-arrest bail is made out hence, the instant bail petition hereby, dismissed.
H.B.T./A-422/L Petition dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- ZULFIQAR vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 973