ASIF IQBAL vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Asif Iqbal, who was accused in F.I.R. No. 33 registered at Police Station Shah Nikdar, District Sargodha, for offences under sections 324, 337-F(iii), 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly on the grounds of consistency with a co-accused who had already been granted bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was specifically named in the daylight occurrence, was attributed a specific firearm injury supported by medical evidence and eyewitness accounts, was connected to the motive, had a pistol recovered from his custody, and fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby distinguishing his case from the co-accused who was found innocent by the police. The key principle laid down is that rule of consistency in bail matters does not apply where the case of the petitioner is distinguishable on merits, such as active attribution of a firearm injury and direct connection with the motive.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when his case is distinguishable from a co-accused who was found innocent during police investigation?
- Does an offence under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code attract the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Whether bail should be refused when reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused is connected with the crime and a weapon has been recovered from his custody?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Asif Iqbal petitioner is an accused person in case F.I.R. No,33 registered at Police Station Shah Nikdar, District Sargodha on 25-5-1999 for offences under sections 324/337-F(iii)/34/109, P.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner and his four co-accused is that at about 6-00 p.m. On 24-5-1999 they had launched a murderous assault on Imran, a brother of Muhammad Sadiq complainant, and had caused him injuries. The petitioner was arrested by the local police in connection with this case on 8-6-1999. Subsequently his successive applications for post-arrest bail were dismissed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha, Camp at Sillanwali and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha vide orders, dated 11-10-1999 and 2-11-1999 respectively. Hence, the present petition before this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that it was a daylight occurrence and the petitioner had been specifically named in the F.I.R. To be one of the perpetrators of the offences in question. A specific fire-arm injury on the person of Imran P.W. Had been attributed to. The petitioner. Four eyewitnesses, including the injured victim, have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the offences alleged against him. The medical evidence prima facie supports the allegation against the petitioner. The petitioner is also directly connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. A pistol has already been recovered from the petitioner's custody during the investigation of this case. An offence under section 324, P.P.C. Attracts the prohibitory clause contained in subsection
(1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The challan against the petitioner has already been submitted after finalization of investigation wherein the local police has felt convinced of the guilt of the petitioner.
The trial against the petitioner has already commenced.
3. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a co-accused of the petitioner namely Waqar Ahmad has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha and that the case against the present petitioner is not distinguishable from the case against the said co-accused. I have, however, remained unable to subscribe to the said view canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said co- accused of the petitioner had been found to be innocent by the local police during the investigation and he was also apparently not connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. Both these considerations are surely not relevant to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner's case was, thus, clearly distinguishable from the case against the said co-accused.
4. For what has been observed above prima facie reasonable grounds do exist to believe in the involvement of the petitioner in the offences alleged against him. This petition, therefore, has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.