JAMSHEED HUSSAIN Versus State
ORDER
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J. ---Petitioner Jamsheed Hussain son of Muhammad Ameer, has sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302/324/114/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No.51/2018 dated 04-08-2018 at Police Station Danyore.
2. The petitioner was refused post-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge Gilgit vide judgment/order dated 25-08-2018 and being dissatisfied from the above order the petitioner has come to this Court for concession of the bail facility.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case is false and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no ocular evidence of the occurrence nor the petitioner is a nominated accused in this case. No recovery has been effected on the pointation of the present petitioner, which brings his case, within the four corners of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Lastly that investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation. There is no concept of advance punishment in criminal justice system, hence the petitioner deserve to be released on bail as he played no active role in commission of the offence. The learned counsel relied on 2010 YLR 3010, 2010 YLR 734 and 2012 YLR 1066.
4. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that two victims were arrested in an abduction case of one Mst. Bushra who is real niece of the petitioner. The complainant party effected a deceitful compromise with malicious intention to eliminate the accused involved in abduction of Mst. Bushra. The learned Dy. Advocate General submitted that the evidence regarding presence of the petitioner is available on record, which reveals that the petitioner was wandering around the premises of the jail, throughout the day and keeping an eye over release of the victims. The petitioner is maternal uncle of alleged abductee Mst. Bushra. The learned Dy. Advocate General further submitted that the victim when boarded in a taxi, were assaulted while on the way to their home by blocking the road. Learned Dy. Advocate General lastly submitted that the offence is heinous one and entails capital punishment, which falls within the prohibitory clauses of section 497, Cr.P.C. and the bail petition be dismissed being meritless. The learned Dy. Advocate General relied on 2000 PCr.LJ 145 and 2010 MLD 1782.
5. The FIR reveals that though the petitioner is not charged in the FIR, but it finds mentioned in the FIR that there were some muffled person involved in commission of the offence along with Dildar Hussain son of Baber Khan. The petitioner was arrested during investigation of the case. The final police report shows that the petitioner was on surveillance of the victims and after their release from jail not only followed them but also got boarded another accused Javed Hussain on his motorbike. Accused Javed Hussain is among the other accused who allegedly committed murder of Wahid Hussain and seriously injured one Raziq Ali. The prosecution file reveals that the offence was committed in a pre-plan and pre-mediated manner in which the petitioner was an active participant who facilitated the main accused who committed the offence. The provisions of section 34, P.P.C. are prima facie attracted in the case and the concession of bail is declined accordingly. The wisdom is drawn from a case reported in 1988 SCMR 281, which is re-produced as under:
"Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 497---Panel Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 452, 148 & 149---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Bail, grant of---Prima facie case of participation in occurrence and facilitating commission of crime---Accused prima facie participated in occurrence and facilitated commission of crime (murder) although he did not inflict any injury to deceased---High Court's order declined to release him on bail, challenged---No point of law raised---No case having been made out for interference in impugned order, leave to appeal was refused."
6. Bail declined. File be consigned to record after completion.
MQ/225/GB Bail refused.