ALLAH BAKHSH vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court refusing bail to the petitioner, Allah Bakhsh, in a case involving charges under Section 307 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of attacking the complainant and another witness with firearms, sought bail on the grounds that two co-accused were found innocent by the police during the investigation and were not challaned, which he argued cast doubt on the prosecution's case. He further contended that a cross-complaint had been filed against the complainant party. The Supreme Court observed that the findings of innocence regarding other co-accused did not automatically entitle the petitioner to bail, nor did the filing of a subsequent cross-complaint assist his case. Crucially, the Court noted that the petitioner was specifically attributed with causing firearm injuries, including a grievous one, which remained uncontested. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for bail, finding no merit in the petition, and accordingly refused leave to appeal.
- Does the police finding of innocence regarding some co-accused automatically entitle the remaining accused to the concession of bail?
- Can a subsequent cross-complaint filed by an accused's relative against the complainant party serve as a valid ground for granting bail in a pending criminal case?
- Is the attribution of specific firearm injuries to an accused a sufficient basis for refusing bail?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NAIMUDDIN, J: --Petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 21st April, 1990, whereby his prayer for bail was rejected though his co-accused, Siraj Din, was granted bail.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Ghulam Abbas, P.W., lodged an F.I.R. With the Police Station Talagang on 12-8-1989 under section 307 read with section 34 of the P.P.C. Alleging that the petitioner and three other persons, namely, Siraj Din, Mehram Khan and Aslam Khan on 12-8-1989 at about mid-day in the area of Dhoke Karak-wall Dakhli Thoha Khan, armed with fire-arm attacked him and Sikandar Hayat, P.W., pursuant to a dispute over a piece of land, as a result of which Ghulam Abbas suffered three injuries, two with fire-arm and one by a blunt weapon.
3. Sikandar Hayat, P.W., suffered six injuries, all caused by fire-arms, mostly in the chest region.
4. During the course of investigation, Police did not arrest Mehram Khan and Aslam Khan, the other co-accused named in the F.I.R. As they were found innocent. The petitioner, alongwith Siraj Din, has been challaned. The petitioner and Siraj Din were arrested on 24-8-1989, and were bailed out by the Senior Civil Judge/Magistrate section 30, Chakwal, on 25-9-1989. Thereupon, the complainant Ghulam Abbas moved an application, for cancellation of their bail. Learned Sessions Judge, Chakwal recalled the bail order of the trial Court and the petitioner and his co-accused, Siraj Din, were taken into custody. They jointly applied for bail to the Lahore High Court, which was granted to Siraj Din but refused to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, seeks bail.
5. We have heard Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Khan Qasuri, the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that since the statements of P.Ws, including injured complaint, were disbelieved by the police qua Mehram Khan and Aslam Khan, the other two co-accused, and they were found innocent and not challaned by the Police, therefore, this fact created doubt as to the truthfulness of the allegation made in the F.I.R. This point was also urged before the learned Single Judge in the High Court and it was observed as follows:-- "According to the learned State counsel, the two co-accused, of the petitioners were found innocent by the police but the findings of their innocence do not affect the case of the petitioner."
6. We may add that if the Police have not unduly challaned Mehram Khan and Aslam Khan, it was open to the complainant to seek his remedy against them but that would not entitle the petitioner the concession of bail. It was then urged that a complain against the complainant party in this case was filed by Gill Jehan son of Sher Khan, the paternal uncle of the petitioner, under section 307, P.P.C. In which the accused have been summoned by the same trial Court. On query made by us he informed that this complaint was filed much after the incident in which the petitioner was involved. Therefore, in our opinion this fact also will not help the petitioner in advancing his case for bail.
7. We may further add that the reason which mainly weighed with the learned Single Judge in Chamber for refusing bail to the petitioner was that the fire-arm injuries, including a grievous one, are attributed to the petitioner. This has not been questioned before us.
8. We, therefore, find no merits in this petition and accordingly, refuse leave.