GHULAM ABBAS Versus State
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising out of F.I.R. registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Katha Saghral, District Khushab. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail when they are named in the F.I.R. and alleged to be part of an unlawful assembly armed with weapons, but no specific firearm injuries or overt acts are attributed to them, and a cross-version exists via a private complaint. The Lahore High Court held that since no specific injuries were attributed to the petitioners, a cross-case/private complaint was pending to determine the aggressor, and they had been in judicial custody for a considerable period without conclusion of trial, their case called for further inquiry. Consequently, the bail application was accepted and post-arrest bail was granted to the petitioners subject to furnishing surety bonds.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is named in the F.I.R. as part of an unlawful assembly but no specific injury is attributed to them?
- Does the existence of a cross-case or private complaint regarding the same occurrence make out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Whether the absence of overt acts or specific weapon attribution during a crime involving multiple accused justifies the concession of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.-- -The petitioners have applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.3 of 2005 dated 9-1-2005 under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Katha Saghral, District Khushab.
2. As per F.I.R. Muhammad Aslam, Amjad; Hayat son of Sahib Khan, Ghulam Abbas son of Sahib Khan, Muhammad Sadiq son of Fateh Muhammad, Sadiq son of Allah Bakhsh, Hayat son of Sher Muhammad, Zafar Iqbal son of Sahib Khan, Muhammad Zafar, Khizar Hayat, Allah Ditta, Javed,- Zafar Iqbal son of Sher Muhammad, Ghulam Abbas son of Sultan Khan, Ahmad Khan son of Fateh Muhammad, Sahib Khan while armed with different weapons and Sher Muhammad empty-handed attacked the complainant party and caused injuries on the persons of Muhammad Mumtaz and Muhammad Nawaz (complainant's brothers) as a result of which they died. According to F.I.R. Muhammad Aslam fired at Muhammad Mumtaz whereas Zafar Iqbal son of Sahib Khan fired at Muhammad Nawaz. The case was registered at the instance of Muhammad Ijaz and petitioners were accordingly arrested on 28-1-2005 and 8-2-2005. Hence this bail application.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Further submits that no injury has been attributed to the petitioners. He contended that accused party had filed private complaint against complainant party about the same occurrence and they have been summoned to face trial vide order dated 10-5-2005 passed by Magistrate Section 30, Khushab. He further contended that (complainant party) had filed revision petition against the order dated 10-5-2005 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 31-8-2005. He has argued that during investigation 11 accused were found to be innocent, therefore the case of petitioners is that of further inquiry and they deserve concession of bail.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant as well as State have opposed this application on the grounds that petitioners are named in F.I.R.; that during investigation weapons were recovered from them; that accused had filed private complaint after a considerable delay and that 43 empties were recovered from the place of occurrence.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties with care. As mentioned above the allegation against the petitioners is that they along with their co-accused while armed with different weapons attacked the complainant party and caused injuries on the persons of Muhammad Mumtaz and Muhammad Nawaz (complainant's brothers) as a result of which they died. According to F.I.R., petitioners were armed with different weapons but no injury has been attributed to them. During investigation 11 persons were found to be 1 innocent. As mentioned above there is cross-case also as accused have filed private complaint against complainant party and after recording preliminary evidence, learned trial Court, observed that prima facie offence under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. is made out and summoned them to face trial vide order dated 10-5-2005. The complainant party filed revision petition there against but the same was dismissed vide order dated 31-8-2005. It would be seen at the time of trial that who is aggressor. Even otherwise no injury has been attributed to the petitioners. They are in judicial lock-up since 28-1-2005 and 8-2-2005. In these circumstances without going into merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioners. As such application brought by them is A accepted and they are allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However if petitioners fail to appear before learned trial Court on any date of hearing the trial Court would be competent to cancel their bail. The observations made in this order would not prejudice case of either party during trial.
H.B.T./G-49/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.