GHULAM HAIDER vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Ghulam Haider, in connection with F.I.R. No. 40 of 1998, registered under Sections 302, 379, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, at Police Station Pahiranwali, District Mandi Bahauddin. The petitioner was alleged to have conspired with the principal accused in the murder of the complainant's parents. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that he was not present at the crime scene, no overt act was attributed to him, and his co-accused facing identical charges had already been granted bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail, noting the principle of consistency, as co-accused with similar allegations had been released. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had already undergone over one year of incarceration without the trial having commenced, and the evidence regarding the conspiracy relied upon chance witnesses, warranting further inquiry. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Is an accused entitled to bail on the principle of consistency if co-accused facing identical charges have already been granted bail?
- Does the absence of an overt act and presence at the crime scene warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can bail be granted where the trial has not commenced and the accused has already suffered significant pre-trial incarceration?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Post-arrest bail is being sought in the case registered vide F.I.R. No .40 of 22-2-1998 under sections 302, 379, 148, 149 and 109, P.P.C. Police Station Pahiranwali, District Mandi Bahauddin, reporting the murder of complainant's parents Muhammad Nawaz and Sakina Bibi respectively by a rifle and gun shot firing of Murad Ali, Mukhtar Ahmed, Saifullah, Muhammad Yousaf and Riaz Ahmed landing on various parts of their anatomy around 8 a.m. To which they sucummed on the spot having conspired with the petitioner, Muhammad Hussain and Ihsanullah.
2. Contending that admittedly neither the petitioner was present at the venue nor any overt act has been ascribed to him and has been implicated solely ascribing conspiratorial role viz. Alleged to have instigated the principal accused as per divulgence of Muhammad Abbas and Muhammad Ashraf i,e, the latter acclaiming so have-over heard the conspiracy being hatched by the accused openly while passing through the adjoining thoroughfare which patently warrants further inquiry since the acclaimed presence being purely a matter of chance; consistency viz. The two co- accused Muhammad Hussain and Ihsanullah with the identical charge having been allowed bail by the Sessions Court, he too is entitled to the concession of which he cannot be stripped off merely on account of motive of having been involved being an elder of the family on which count he has already suffered more than one year's internment, commencement of the trial whereof is out of sight.
3. Which has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as the State reiterating the prosecution story without dislodging the contentions urged on instructions imparted by the police official in attendance equipped with the record; persuaded whereby the petitioner is allowed bail upon furnishing bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Court concerned.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUREED vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 2732
- NAZIR AHMAD vs THE STATE 2002 MLD 1143