MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Afzal, who was implicated in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kot Moman, District Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the allegations against him. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was present at the scene of the crime and raised a lalkara, although he was not attributed with any active role in the firing that caused the deceased's death. The Court observed that the petitioner was not alleged to have committed any overt act, no recovery was effected from him during the investigation, and no motive was attributed to him. Holding that the petitioner's case required further inquiry into his guilt, the Court allowed the bail application. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is merely alleged to have raised a lalkara without any active role, recovery, or motive, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does the mere allegation of raising a lalkara, without any active role or recovery, entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- When does a case against an accused in a murder charge qualify for further inquiry under the law of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SYED SHAHBAR RAZA RIZVI, J .---The learned counsel has filed this bail application for post arrest bail of Muhammad Afzal, petitioner. The petitioner stands named in F.I.R. No. 386 of 2006, dated 5-7-2006. The said F.I.R. was registered under sections 302, 34 and 109, P.P.C. at Police Stations Kot Moman, District Sargodha.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., the complainant and his deceased son, Shahzad Ahmad Naeem were sowing in their fields that suddenly petitioner and two other co-accused appeared. Co-accused Fayyaz fired three shots with his .12 bore gun hitting on the back of deceased, Shahzad Ahmad Naeem. According to the F.I.R., the deceased expired as a result of the said injuries. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that the raised lalkara.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab. As noted above, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the time of occurrence and raised lalkara. During the course of investigation, no recovery has been effected from him. Though he is shown in the F.I.R. as armed with rifle, but the Investigation Officer has failed to ascribe him any active role except his presence empty-handed. For the same reason, no recovery has been effected from him. The motive is also not attributed to him. The petitioner was arrested on 7-9-2006 and since then he has been behind the bars. The trial has not commenced yet. The above circumstances provide sufficient grounds for further inquiry into guilt of the petitioner. Thus, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released if not required in any other case subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Area Magistrate.
H.B.T./M-58/L Bail granted.