ABDUL MAJEED alias BHOLA vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 324, 436, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, wherein he was accused alongside co-accused persons of forcibly entering the complainant's house, firing indiscriminately, injuring a person, and setting the house on fire. The legal issue before the Lahore High Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail in light of general allegations and prolonged incarceration without conclusion of the trial. The High Court observed that a perusal of the FIR revealed no specific role attributed to the petitioner beyond a general allegation of indiscriminate firing jointly with co-accused. Additionally, the petitioner had been incarcerated since September 1997 while the trial remained pending. Consequently, the High Court admitted the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds with sureties. The court established that lack of a specific overt role and delayed conclusion of trial during prolonged custody justify the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when only a general allegation of indiscriminate firing is attributed without specifying an overt role?
- Does prolonged custody without the conclusion of trial constitute a valid ground for admitting an accused to bail in an offense involving unlawful assembly?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,324 of 1997 dated 20-6-1997 registered under section 324/436/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner as alleged in the F.I.R. Is that on 20-6-1997 at about 3-00 p.m. The petitioner being armed with double-barrel gun along with his ten other co-accused who were also allegedly armed with firearms forcibly entered into the house of the complainant and started firing indiscriminately. Allah Yar, brother of the complainant, received fire-arm injuries due to this firing. Complainant party also fired in self-defence and due to this, Muhammad Musthaq, co-accused, received injuries. Lastly, accused person put the house of the complainant on fire after sprinkling kerosene oil.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 4-6-1997 and trial in the said case has not yet been concluded. Further contends that statutory period provided under the Statute has elapsed, thus, argues that petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Further argues that in the F.I.R., no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner but general allegation of indiscriminating firing has been attributed to him. Lastly, contends that question of vicarious liability of the petitioner is yet to be determined by the trial Court, hence, case of the petitioner requires further inquiry.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the grant of bail.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of instant case minutely.
6. Bare perusal of F.I.R. Does not show any specific role played by the petitioner and the only allegation is that of indiscriminate firing alongwith other co-accused. We have observed that petitioner was arrested on 4-9-1997 and uptil today, trial of the case has not been concluded.
' Keeping in view the circumstances of this, we are inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.