Hafiz ABDUL MALIK vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Hafiz Abdul Malik, who is implicated in an F.I.R. registered under Sections 302, 324, 201, 109, and 149 read with Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of hatching a conspiracy leading to an armed attack on a Majlis resulting in multiple deaths and injuries, sought bail after being declined relief by the Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of conspiracy and the procedural delays in the trial. The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail, noting that the allegations of conspiracy were supported by unrebutted witness testimony, indicating his active participation in the crime. Furthermore, the Court observed that the trial delays were attributable to the conduct of the accused, including the failure to engage counsel, rather than the prosecution. The principle laid down is that bail is not a matter of right where there is prima facie evidence of conspiracy and active participation in a heinous crime, and procedural delays caused by the accused do not constitute valid grounds for bail.
- Does the existence of unrebutted witness testimony regarding a conspiracy to commit murder justify the refusal of post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused person claim entitlement to bail based on trial delays when those delays are caused by the conduct of the accused?
- Does poor eyesight constitute a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in a case involving serious criminal charges?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
ORDER
' Hafiz Abdul Malik petitioner alongwith others involved in case F.I.R. No,181 of 1996, dated 18-8-1996, under sections 302/324/ 201/109/149 read with section 148, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Mitro, Tehsil and District Vehari at the instance of one Abdul Ghafoor.
2. Precisely, accusations brought against the petitioner are that he hatched out a conspiracy and in pursuance thereof his co-accused constituted themselves into an unlawful assembly while armed with fire-arms on 18-6-1996 in the area of Basti Malikpur, Mauza Lalipur and then resorted to firing in quick succession over an assembly of persons, who were attending the Majlis and in consequence of said firing a large number of persons were killed and sustained felonious injuries.
3. Earlier, the petitioner was declined this relief by the learned Judge, Special Court No,II, constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Multan by virtue of his order, dated 8-3-2000.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State Counsel have been heard at length. We find that startling allegations of hatching out a conspiracy are there against the petitioner, which are supported by the statements of two witnesses. Their-testimony remains unrebutted as yet. The petitioner appears to be a great schemer and conspiracy hatched out by him was carried to. Its logical end, which speaks of his fullest participation in the commission of crime in question. The petitioner's conduct deserves serious criticism owing to tie fact that he failed to engage a counsel to conduct trial of the case, and a counsel at the State expense had to be appointed. He also failed to attend to his duties regularly. The co-accused of the petitioner also behaved in the same manner, so it was solely for the reason that the counsel on behalf of the petitioner and his co-accused did not appear and, as such, delay in the conclusion of the trial occurred. The matter did not rest here. Shafiq-urRehman, and Muhammad Ishaq, co-accused of the petitioner, were transferred to Gujranwala and Sargodha Jails for the trial of some others cases, in which they stood involved and for the reasons the Court had to wait for their return from those places. Poor eye-sight of the petitioner will not entitle him to the grant of bail.
5. Accordingly, we dismiss this petition being devoid of force.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus State 2005 PCrLJ 1797