MUMTAZ ALI KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by Mumtaz Ali Khan, an accused in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 427, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who was alleged to have conspired and abetted the commission of the offence resulting in multiple deaths. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of advanced age and chronic heart ailment, notwithstanding allegations of being the mastermind. The Court decided to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner, holding that his age of approximately 70 years and suffering from a heart ailment warranted the concession of bail, subject to furnishing heavy surety bonds and undertaking strict conditions to ensure trial attendance and prevent interference with evidence. The key principle laid down is that advanced age and serious medical conditions can constitute valid grounds for granting post-arrest bail in heinous offences, provided adequate safeguards are imposed to secure the administration of justice.
- Whether advanced age and a chronic heart ailment can be considered sufficient grounds for granting post-arrest bail in a case involving murder and other serious offences?
- Can a court impose heavy surety bonds and specific undertakings on sureties to mitigate the risks of an accused absconding or tampering with evidence?
- Is the trial court empowered to cancel bail if the accused interferes with the evidence or obstructs the progress of the trial?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner is one of the accused in case F.I.R. No,52, dated 1-3-1998 under sections 302, 427, 324, 148, 149 and 109, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Garh Maharaja, District Jhang at the instance of Wajid Ali Khan, complainant. Three persons namely Haji Amjad Ali, Safdar Ali and Mumtaz Khan lost their lives in the incident, Ghazanfar Abbas was injured. Mumtaz Ali Khan petitioner was involved in the case on the ground that he had confederated, conspired and abetted his co-accused in the commission of offence.
2. Petitioner was allowed bail by the trial Court. On the motion of complainant to the petitioner was cancelled and he was taken into custody.
3. Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail and it has been submitted on his behalf that he was aged about 70 years and suffered from heart ailment for a considerable period of time and deserved the concession of bail on the aforesaid grounds. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand opposed the prayer made by the petitioner. It was contended that petitioner was the master mind behind the incident, had criminal antecedents and was likely to tamper with the evidence if released on bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submitted that petitioner would be willing to post bail bond for a heavy amount in order to ensure his bona fides in the matter.
5. The petitioner is aged about 70 years and is suffering from heart ailment as well and for the aforesaid factors we are inclined to release him on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5 lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The trial Court shall ascertain the antecedents of prospective sureties and shall accept bonds from persons who would be in a position to produce the petitioner in trial Court when required for the purpose of trial.
The office shall also remit the copy of order, dated 27-10-2000 passed in Niamat etc. v. State (Criminal Revision Petition No,425 of 1999), to the trial Court. The trial Court shall obtain undertaking from the prospective sureties in terms indicated in the aforesaid order, as well.
6. Learned counsel for complainant also prayed that a time frame be provided for conclusion of trial as the accused were hampering with , the smooth progress of the trial. The prayer has not been opposed to from the side of the petitioner. The trial Court shall conclude the trial within six months from today. The trial Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate penal measures against the delinquent party or persons in case of their non-cooperation with the trial Court in achievement of the above objective.
7. In case the petitioner interfered with the evidence, obstructed the progress of trial or misconducted in any manner the trial Court shall be at liberty and shall have the power to cancel the bail being allowed to the petitioner.