MUHAMMAD WASEEM RAZA vs THE STATE
The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a shooting incident. The core legal questions concerned whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite allegations of abscondence and the existence of general allegations against multiple accused. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on three key principles: first, that where general allegations are made against multiple accused without specifying who caused the fatal injury, the matter warrants further inquiry; second, that the grant of bail to a co-accused renders the abscondence of the applicant irrelevant; and third, that an accused cannot be legally classified as an absconder unless proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have been formally initiated against them. Given the applicant's prolonged incarceration of over three years and the lack of specific evidence, the Court admitted the applicant to bail.
- Does the grant of bail to a co-accused render the abscondence of another accused irrelevant?
- Can an accused be legally termed an absconder if proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have not been initiated?
- Do general allegations of firing against multiple accused without specifying the fatal blow entitle an accused to further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The present applicant is seeking bail in Crime No, 259 of 1995 registered with Police Station Orangi Town under sections 302, 324, 34, P.P.C.
2. ' The case of the prosecution is that accused Ameen, Waseem, Bhoora,kftab Mota, Andoo Videowala, Hassan Akhtar and Ajmal and present applicant Waseem Raza all came duly armed and fired upon the deceased namely Nawab Bhai who succumbed to injuries and died.
3. ' The present applicant is said to have been arrested on 25-9-1999 by the police and thereafter the challan is said to have been submitted before the competent Court of Law on 25-9-1999. The present applicant moved bail application before the trial Court but without success.
4. ' Mr. Nawab Mirza, advocate for the applicant, has contended that no specific role is assigned to the present applicant and there are general allegations and in that event it is not clear from the record as to who caused fatal blow to the deceased and leaves room for consideration and has placed reliance on Jaffar's case reported in 1980 SCM R 784. Learned counsel the applicant has further contended that the identity of the main accused is debatable in the matter and has placed reliance on a case reported in 1985 PCr.L1 2323. He . Has further contended that the co-accused namely Muhammad Ibrahim has been granted bail by the trial Court and the abscondence of the present applicant has become irrelevant. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a case reported / in 1985 SCM R 382.
5. ' On the other hand Mr. Arshad Lodhi, Assistant Advocate-General for the State has recorded his no objection to the grant of bail on the point that no proceedings have been initiated against the present applicant under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. And in that event the present applicant cannot be dubbed as absconder and has placed reliance on 1989 SCM R 1987 and according to the learned A.A.-G. The applicant is behind the bars for the last more than three years.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have given my anxious . Thoughts to their submissions. Admittedly, the co-accused has been granted bail by the trial Court and the present applicant although has remained absconder for more than three years but on grant of bail to the co-accused the long abscondence of the present applicant becomes irrelevant and I am being fortified by the authority given by the fion'ble Supreme Court in case reported in 1985 SCM R
382. Admittedly there are general allegations and all the accused have tired upon deceased and it is not clear from the record that who- caused fatal injuries to the deceased which leaves room lbr consideration and I am being fortified by the case of Jaffer reported in 1980 SCM R 784. There is no suggesting evidence according to the material available on record that who caused fatal injury to the deceased and in that event the identity of main accused becomes debatable and I am being fortified by case-law reported in 1985 PCr.LJ 1323. Since no proceedings have been initiated against the present applicant under sections 87/88 Cr.P.C. As informed by learned counsel for the State. I am being fortified by the case-law reported in 1989 SCM R 1987 wherein the Hon'bte Supreme Court has held that when proceedings have not been initiated under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C., the accused cannot be dubbed as absconder. In the instant case there are no proceedings initiated under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. And the present applicant cannot be dubbed as absconder particularly when co-accused has been granted bail by the trial Court. Lt' is also startling to note that no efforts have been taken by the police to arrest or apprehend the present applicant who has been residing at the same place since his birth which appears in the caption of bail application and it shows that the police was not keen interested to arrest afore named accused and did not visit the place where he has been residing since his birth and in that event it cannot be said that the present applicant absconded from the place of Wardat deliberately and I am being fortified by the case-law reported in 1985 SCM R 1709.
7. In view of abovementioned facts, legal positions and authorities cited by the learned counsel for the parties at Bar, I am of the considered view that the present applicant has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of bail particularly when he is behind the bars for the last more than three years and accordingly he is granted bail in the sum of, Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- NEEL SHAH vs THE STATE and another 2011 YLR 1611