MUHAMMAD EJAZ Versus State
This matter involves a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a cross-version case registered under sections 148, 302, 324, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency with a co-accused who was previously granted bail, and whether a second bail petition is maintainable without any material change in circumstances. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a distinction existed in the severity and nature of the firearm injuries attributed to the petitioner compared to the co-accused, indicating a specific intention to kill. Furthermore, the Court held that changing counsel does not constitute a fresh ground for filing a second bail petition shortly after the withdrawal of the first one. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency in bail matters does not apply mechanically where factual dissimilarities, such as the anatomical site and gravity of the injury, distinguish the roles of the accused persons.
- Does the rule of consistency in bail matters apply when the firearm injury attributed to the petitioner is more severe and on a vital part of the body compared to a co-accused who was granted bail?
- Can a change of counsel constitute a fresh ground for entertaining a second post-arrest bail petition after the withdrawal of the earlier petition?
- Do reasonable grounds exist to refuse post-arrest bail when an accused is attributed a firearm injury on the face of a prosecution witness indicating an intention to kill?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 341, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J ---Through this petition Muhammad Ejaz petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in the cross-version of case F.I.R. No. 90 registered at police station Chakrala District Mianwali on 12-12-2004 respect of offences under sec tions 148/302/324/149, P.P.C. and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The said cross-version had been registered on 17-12-2004 in respect of offences under sections 324/440/337-A(i)/337-A(ii)/341/336/ 148/149/109, P.P.C. and section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the present petition is that the case against the present petitioner is similar to that against Sher Baz accused mentioned in the F.I.R. as the said co-accused had also been attributed a fire-arm injury on the person of a prosecution witness and he has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 20-12-2005 passed by this Court in criminal Miscellaneous No. 8757-B of 2005. We have gone through the order, dated 20-12-2005 passed by us in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8757-B of 2005 and have noticed that Sher Baz accused had been admitted to bail by us on the ground that he had not been nominated in the F.I. R and his name had been introduced through a supplementary statement. It appears that we had not been properly assisted on the occasion and it had been maintained before us that Sher Baz accused had not caused any injury to the deceased or to any prosecution witness whereas we now appreciate that according to the supplementary statement made by the complainant the said Sher Baz accused had been attributed a fire-arm injury on the ankle of Ahmad Gul P.W. It is true that the petitioner has also not been attributed any injury to the deceased and the allegation levelled against the petitioner is also in respect of causing a fire-arm injury to a prosecution witness namely Sher Ahmad but despite that apparent similarity between the case of Sher Baz accused and the present petitioner we have found a striking dissimilarity vis-a-vis the case against the said accused person and the petitioner and that is that the injury caused by Sher Baz accused to Ahmad Gul P.W. was on the ankle of the said prosecution witness which prima facie appears to be an injury caused by a single pellet whereas the role attributed to the petitioner is that of causing a fire-arm injury on the mouth of Sher Ahmad P.W. We have gone through the medico-legal certificate issued in respect of, Sher Ahmad P.W. and have found that the shot allegedly fired by the petitioner at the mouth of Sher Ahmad P.W. had caused three serious injuries on the face and in the mouth of the said prosecution witness. Giving such a fire-arm injury to the victim on his face apparently depicts an intention to kill on the part of the petitioner whereas prima facie the same cannot be said with any degree of certainty at this stage vis-a-vis the role attributed to Sher Baz accused.
3. It may be pertinent to mention here that the petition in hand happens to be the second petition filed by the petitioner before this Court seeking the same relief in the self-same criminal case. His first petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8833-B of 2005) had been dismissed by us as having been withdrawn on 20-12-2005 after the learned counsel for the petitioner had addressed elaborate arguments in support of the said petition but had remained unable to convince us regarding the petitioner's bail. The circumstances of this case have not undergone any material change vis-a-vis the petitioner during the interregnum. The only difference this time is that the learned counsel representing the petitioner is different. This is hardly a fresh ground for admitting the petitioner to bail in the same criminal case within a span of about two months of dismissal of his earlier petition by us.
4. For what has been discussed above prima facie reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.
H.B.T/M-294/L Bail refused.