MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 278 dated 21-6-2007 registered under sections 324 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Khanewal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the role attributed to him, the nature of the injuries inflicted, the period already spent in incarceration, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's act of abducting the complainant at gunpoint, robbing him, and effectively firing at him demonstrated a desperate temperament, bringing the offense within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition and refused bail. The key principle laid down is that an accused who plays a specific active role in a murderous assault involving desperate circumstances and falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is not ordinarily entitled to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role of firing at the complainant is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an offense involving a murderous assault and robbery fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a desperate temperament demonstrated by the accused during the commission of the crime disentitle them to the concession of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J .---Petitioner seeks post arrest bail through this petition in' case F.I.R. No.278, dated 21-6-2007 under section 324/34, P.P.C., Police Station Sadar Khanewal.
2. Ghulam Sarwar complainant alleged in the F.I.R. that he was removed from his Tubewell where he was sleeping at 1 a.m. in the mid-night by Muhammad Sadiq petitioner who was armed with pistol and his co-accused namely Nawaz and one unknown person and taken to Kacha road at a distance of about 2 squares from his Tubewell. Petitioner fired at him hitting hint on his right knee. Nawaz fired at him which missed the target. The unknown person gave blows with hatchet hitting him on the right wrist, arm and right foot. The accused took out Rs.700 (seven hundred) from his pocket and deprived him of his mobile phone as well. Previous enmity was alleged to be the motive of offence.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the story mentioned in the F.I.R. was not believable. If the petitioner and his co-accused had intention of committing Qutl-i-Amad of the complainant, they could have fired at him while he was sleeping and could have accomplished their design. The petitioner had been in the Jail for the last 8 months without any progress in the trial. The fire did not hit the complainant on any vital organ, therefore, he was entitled to bail in the light of case law reported in PLD 2004 SC 477.
4. Opposing the petition, learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner was involved in numerous case of theft. He was nominated in the F.I.R. and specific role was assigned to him. The fire weapon used by him proved his intention to launch murderous assault on the complainant, therefore, he was not entitled to bail in the light of authorities reported in 2005 MLD 823 (Mohammad Arshad v. The State) and 2007 PCr.LJ 1056 (Zahoor Illahi and another v. Shazad Ahmad and another).
5. The act of removing the complainant on gun-pint from his Tubewell to another place and robbing him of the above mentioned articles by further effectively firing at him, indicates the desperate temperament of the petitioner which takes the case away from the circumstances of case-law relied upon by him. The punishment for the offence in question certainly falls under prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. This petition is held to be without any force, hence, is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-96/L Bail refused.