FAYYAZ AHMAD and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Fiaz Ahmad, who was charged alongside co-accused in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 337-A(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have acted in furtherance of a common intention but was not accused of causing any specific injuries to the deceased or the prosecution witnesses, was entitled to the concession of bail given his prolonged incarceration. The Lahore High Court, upon reviewing the circumstances, noted that no recovery was made from the petitioner during the investigation and that he had been detained for approximately one year. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is not attributed any specific overt act of violence or injury, and has remained incarcerated for a significant period without the necessity of further investigation, the case for post-arrest bail is made out, subject to the provision of adequate surety bonds.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when no specific injury is attributed to them in a case involving common intention?
- Does the absence of recovery during investigation justify the grant of bail to an accused in custody for a significant period?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he did not press this petition to the extent of Mushtaq Ahmad, hence to his extent instant petition stands dismissed.
2. Fiaz Ahmad son of Gul Muhammad (petitioner) seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,5 of 2000, dated 4-1-2000 registered under sections 302/337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Kot Mithan Sharif, District Rajanpur. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that on 4-1-2000 at about 4-30 pm , he alongwith other co-accused in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of one Mst. Pathani and caused injuries to Khan Muhammad. During the investigation, petitioner was arrested on 21-1-2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased or to any of the P.Ws. That he was implicated in this case being brother of co-accused who allegedly committed the murder of Mst. Pathani that during the investigation nothing was recovered from him and that the petitioner was behind the bars for the last one year and was no more required for any further investigation.
4. Heard.
5. As the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased or to any of the P.Ws. And during the investigation nothing was recovered from him, the petitioner is behind the bars since 21-1-2000, in the circumstances, I am persuaded to allow this petition. Accordingly, it is directed that Fiaz Ahmad son of Gul Muhammad (the petitioner) shall be admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.