ABDUL REHMAN Versus State Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi
This criminal miscellaneous petition arises from an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Abdul Rehman, in connection with F.I.R. No. 120/2006 registered at Police Station Muzafar Abad, Multan, for offences under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidentiary material available. The petitioner argued that the prosecution's case lacked medical support, no specific weapon was attributed to him, and the police investigation suggested the offence fell under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which is outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the co-accused had already been granted bail and noted the absence of specific allegations regarding sharp-edged injuries attributed to the petitioner. Holding that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry, the Court applied the rule of consistency and granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused has already been granted bail in the same case?
- Does an offence under Section 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does a criminal case qualify for the grant of bail on the basis of further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 322, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.--- Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1636-B of 2007 filed on behalf of petitioner Abdul Rehman seeking post-arrest bail arises from case F.I.R. No.120, dated 12-5-2006 registered with Police Station Muzafar Abad District Multan for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The precise allegation as embodied in the F.I.R. is that petitioner and the co-accused Ashiq Hussain gave beating to deceased. The co-accused was allegedly sitting on the chest of the deceased while the petitioner held his arms. Complainant and the P.Ws. intervened and rescued the victim who subsequently died.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prosecution version does not find support from the medical as well as Chemical Examiner's report. Adds that petitioner did not use any weapon and there is no specific attribution to him and no previous enmity exists between the petitioner and deceased motivating the petitioner to do away with the deceased. Adds that police during the investigation concluded that no offence under section 302, P.P.C. was made out and in fact section 322, P.P.C. was attracted which does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause to section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the State controverts the assertions and opposes the grant of bail on the ground that petitioner is involved in a heinous offence.
5. Admittedly, the co-accused of the petitioner namely Ashiq Hussain has already been granted bail by this Court vide order, dated 6-2-2007 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3634-B of 2006. There is no reference of any sharp-edged injury alleged to have been inflicted by the petitioner in the F.I.R. though mentioned in the MLR. Cause of death is also not ascertainable. The aforesaid brings the case of the petitioner within the tour corners of further inquiry, and by following the rule of consistency, I am inclined to exercise discretion in his favour with the consequence that petitioner shall be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.150,000 with two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./A-222/L Bail granted.