MUHAMMAD YAR and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by four petitioners seeking release in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 324, 452, 170, 171, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the prosecution's evidence, including recovery of weapons and investigation findings, compared to co-accused who had previously been granted bail. The Court held that while the first three petitioners (Muhammad Yar, Muhammad Hussain, and Ghulam Farid) were not entitled to bail due to the recovery of incriminating weapons (12-bore guns and 7mm rifles) and their implication in the challan, the fourth petitioner (Muhammad Ikram) was entitled to bail. The Court distinguished the fourth petitioner's case because no recovery was effected from him, and no specific role was attributed to him, unlike the other petitioners. The key principle laid down is that bail may be granted where the prosecution fails to establish a specific incriminating role or recovery against a particular accused, even if co-accused are denied relief based on stronger evidence.
- Is an accused entitled to bail if no incriminating recovery is made from them and no specific role is attributed to them?
- Does the grant of bail to co-accused with similar roles automatically entitle other petitioners to bail?
- Can bail be denied to petitioners when incriminating weapons have been recovered from them during the investigation?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 170, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 171, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioners through this application have sought post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No, 184 of 1997, dated 6-7-1997 under section 302/324/452/170/171/148/149/109, P.P.C. At Police Station Luddon, District Vehari.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the aforestated F.I.R. Was recorded on the statement of Saif Ullah with the allegation that he noticed firing in the house of Nazar Hussain where two unknown persons wearing uniform were killed.
3. Learned counsel has sought bail on the ground that the petitioners have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. And they have been implicated in a mala fide manner. A further argument had been advanced that the co-accused Feroze and Muhammad Afzal having similar role have already been released on bail by this Court vide Criminal Miscellaneous No . 1057/B of 1998.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Law Officer have opposed the grant of bail. He has pointed out that the petitioners have been found implicated after thorough investigation and challan has already been submitted against them. It has further been pointed out that incriminating weapons during the course of investigations have also been recovered from the petitioners except Muhammad Ikram petitioner No,4.
5. I have considered the contentions. The case of the petitioners Nos.1 to 3 is totally different from that of Feroze Din and Muhammad Afzal who were released on bail earlier by this Court. No recovery whatsoever was effected from them nor any motive was ascribed to them. However, it is admitted before me that from first three petitioners namely Muhammad Yar, Muhammad Hussain and Ghulam Farid, .12 bore guns and 7 mm rifles were recovered from them during the course of investigations. Further during the course of investigation they have been found fully implicated and challan has already been submitted respecting them before the Court of competent jurisdiction.
As far as petitioner No,4 Muhammad Ikram is concerned his case is distinguishable as no recovery whatsoever was effected from him nor any role has been attributed to him. In this background, except Muhammad Ikram petitioner No,4, I am not inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, bail plea qua petitioners Nos.1 to 3 is rejected and Muhammad Ikram petitioner No,4 is admitted to bail provided the furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,one lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate concerned.