MUHAMMAD AKHTAR vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail relating to F.I.R. No. 730 dated 6-12-1999 registered under sections 324, 337-A(i) and 337-A(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar Arifwala, District Pakpattan. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the applicability of the prohibitory clause under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires further inquiry and co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that the applicability of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is one of further inquiry, and since the remaining offences carry maximum sentences not exceeding seven years, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail on the rule of consistency. The court laid down the principle that where major penal provisions fall within the scope of further inquiry and co-accused with identical roles have been admitted to bail, the accused should not be denied the same relief.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the applicability of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires further inquiry?
- Whether bail should be granted on the rule of consistency when a co-accused facing similar allegations has already been admitted to bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' The matter pertains to F.I.R. No,730, dated 6-12-1999, under sections 324, 337-A(i) and 337-A(ii), P.P.C., lodged at Police Station Sadar Arifwala, District Pakpattan.
2. The complainant in this case is Hazir Khan who informed the police about the case on the basis of information received from Muhammad Mansha and Muhammad Akhtar P.Ws. The information was that when Abdul Jabbar his cousin was coming home on a bus and had disembarked at the Adda Bairi Pattan, three persons named Muhammad Akhtar, the petitioner, Khurshid and Muhammad Khan were already there, armed with rota and they inflicted blows on the head and bod of the injured P.W. Who fell down and was later removed to the hospital by the eye-witnesses.
The motive is that the litigation is going on between two families and Abdul Jabbar was looking after the interest of his family.
3. The victim in this case has suffered five injuries. According to the doctor, injury No,1 is Shajjah-e- Khafifan and injury No,2 is Shajjah-e-Mudihah. Prima facie attracting the provisions of sections 337-A(i) and 337-A(ii) of the P.P.C., which do not bring the case under the prohibitory clause.
Anyhow because of section 324 of the P.P.C., the offence has been shown of more serious nature.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no specific injury has been ascribed to the petitioner and it has yet to be seen who was responsible for which injury on the person of the victim. That no premeditation is involved in this case because the arrival of the injured P.W. At the bus stop could not have been in their knowledge. That the case has been fabricated against the petitioner and his co-accused. That it is yet to be seen whether an offence was made under section 324 of the P.P.C., with respect to the allegation of Qatl-e-Amd because the accused was allegedly armed with blunt weapons and they are said to have spared the life of the victim on the asking of P.Ws. Which they may not have done if they were actuated with the intention of killing the victim. That the co-accused on similar facts has already been bailed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while the present petitioner was refused for no logical reasons.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State, this Court agrees with the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the question whether a case under section 324 of the P.P.C., was made out is one of further inquiry. Whereas in the case of the other offences, the maximum sentence being not more than 7 years, the petitioner even otherwise is entitled to bail, which concession his co-accused Khurshid is already enjoying. 1, consequently, admit, the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.