MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus State Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi , Malik Tanvir Sub
This criminal miscellaneous petition concerns an application for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Aslam, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have raised a 'Lalkara' (incitement) but was otherwise empty-handed and not the actual shooter, was entitled to bail, particularly given that the complainant, the husband of the deceased, had submitted an affidavit stating he had no objection to the grant of bail and claiming the petitioner was not present at the scene. The court held that the case warranted further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where the complainant explicitly waives objection to bail and questions the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime, such circumstances constitute valid grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail, especially when the trial has seen no significant progress for a substantial period.
- Does the absence of an overt act or weapon in a murder case involving Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constitute grounds for further inquiry regarding bail?
- Can a complainant's affidavit stating no objection to bail be considered an extenuating circumstance for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is the lack of progress in a trial a relevant factor for the grant of bail in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.--- This order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2130-B of 2007 filed on behalf of petitioner Muhammad Aslam seeking post-arrest bail in case F.LR. No. 292, dated 9-10-2006 registered with Police Station Sahoo Ka District Vehari for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. Muhammad Akram complainant husband of deceased disclosed in the F.I.R. that on the fateful day while they were working in the cotton field, petitioner empty-handed also emerged at the scene of crime and raised Lalkara to do away with the wife of the petitioner, whereupon, Muhammad Afzaal fired from his pistol hitting the back of left shoulder causing her spontaneous death.
3. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that present case is an outcome of malice and misunderstanding. Adds that no overt act and motive has been assigned to the petitioner who was empty-handed, was not sharing the common intention to kill and did not cause even a scratch to deceased. Last but not the least, learned counsel vehemently asserts that complainant who happens to be the husband of his deceased wife and the eye-witness of the occurrence, has sworn an affidavit categorically reiterating that the former has no objection for the grant of bail to the petitioner and that the latter was not present at the time and place of occurrence and this being an extenuating circumstances and a valid ground for the grant of bail to petitioner who is behind the bars for the last about a year without any progress in the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the State and complainant do not seriously object to the grant of bail on the grounds urged at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Evaluating the pros and cons of the present case, I am of the considered view that provisions of further inquiry are fully attracted making out a case for interference. Therefore, I direct that petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000 (two lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-529/L Bail granted.