QALIB ABBAS vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning a murder incident involving an unlawful assembly and firearm use. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where no specific overt act of causing a fatal injury is attributed to him, the firing is alleged to be ineffective and subsequent to the main occurrence, no incriminating recoveries or crime empties were made from him, and he has no connection to the motive while having undergone prolonged incarceration with the trial delayed due to re-investigation. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail application, holding that the petitioner's case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given the lack of overt acts, absence of recoveries, and delayed trial. The key principle laid down is that ineffective firing coupled with the absence of incriminating recoveries and delayed trial furnish grounds for grant of post-arrest bail as a matter of further inquiry.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no overt act of murder is attributed and the alleged firing is ineffective?
- Does the absence of weapon recovery and incriminating articles support the grant of bail under further inquiry?
- Can prolonged incarceration and delayed trial due to re-investigation constitute grounds for granting bail in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Post-arrest bail is being sought in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,609 of 9-8-1998 under sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Police Station Kunjah District Gujrat reporting the murder of complainant's paternal-cousin Shahbaz Ahmad by rifle shot firing of co-accused Tufail Hussain as members of an unlawful assembly subsequent whereto his accomplices including the petitioner equipped with kalashnikov resorted to indiscriminate firing.
2. Contending that no overt act has been ascribed to the petitioner save for the alleged ineffective kalashnikov's firing, that too subsequent to the event, factum whereof stands refuted by the admitted non-recovery of any crime-empty of the weapon in question nor any other incriminating article has been recovered from him, who is even alien to the motive on which count he has already suffered nearly six months internment, commencement of the trial whereof is out of sight for the case having been entrusted to the Crimes Branch for re-investigation.
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 upon instructions imparted by the police official in attendance equipped with the record.
4. 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 Judge concerned. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 4 cases
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE 2009 MLD 779
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 72
- ZAHID ABBAS and others vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 130
- MAQBOOL AHMED vs THE STATE through Bakht Ali 2004 YLR 2275