MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Akram, who is accused in F.I.R. No. 65 of 2007 registered under Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for house trespass, causing injury, and robbery. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of a serious crime, the recovery of incriminating items, and the reliance on a co-accused's bail order based on a complainant's statement. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's involvement was established through investigation, including the recovery of stolen property and the victim's injury. The Court emphasized that in non-compoundable offences, an affidavit or statement from a prosecution witness favoring an accused at the bail stage carries little weight, as the veracity of such shifts must be tested during trial through cross-examination. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that granting bail in heinous offences where evidence is strong would trivialize the gravity of the crime, and that alleged pressure on witnesses by co-accused constitutes tampering with prosecution evidence.
- Does an affidavit or statement from a prosecution witness favoring an accused in a non-compoundable case carry significant weight at the bail stage?
- Should bail be granted in cases involving heinous offences where the petitioner's involvement is established by investigation and recovery of stolen property?
- Can a co-accused's bail, granted based on a complainant's statement, be used as a ground for parity by a petitioner accused of the same offence?
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
S. ALI HASSAN RIZVI, J.--- Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R No.65 of 2007 under section 394, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Hanjarwal, Lahore.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 24-1-2007, the complainant lady was alone in her house and he along with his co-accused armed with dagger trespassed into the house, caused a dagger blow hitting her on the belly and looted the valuable articles by show of force.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for petitioner that one co-accused Mushtaq Ahmad having similar role has been enlarged on bail as the complainant lady had given a statement in his favour; that the recovery was planted and that no role was attributed to the petitioner.
4. Conversely, learned D.P.-G assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes these grounds.
5. The involvement of the petitioner was fully established during investigation. Recovery of pistol, wrist watch, gold ornaments including pair of earrings speaks heavily against him. He was arrested the same day. Injury on the belly of the victim, was a stamp of truth of the F.I.R. The petitioner's involvement having been established, he has been duly challaned. The offence committed by the petitioner is hideous in nature. Granting him bail, would amount to trivialize and play down the gravity of the offence committed by him. The alleged statement of the complainant lady in favour of the co-accused would in no manner be helpful to the petitioner. On the other hand, it was indicative of the fact that the co-accused had pressurized her which amounted to tampering with the prosecution evidence. In non-compoundable cases, affidavit of any P.W. would not carry much weight at bail stage. The reason is that the veracity of the shift made by the P.W. from her earlier statement before the police, would be tested in the course of trial when prosecution will have also an opportunity to cross-examine him/her. The petitioner appears to be a criminal with considerable clouts. He is not entitled to be released on bail. I, therefore, dismiss his petition.
H.B.T./M-287/L Bail refused.