NISAR AHMED vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 382, 337-A(ii), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-F(iii), 337-L(ii) and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from F.I.R. No. 148 of 2000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail considering the rule of consistency with co-accused and the period already spent in incarceration. The court held that since all co-accused persons were already on bail, the petitioner had been in custody for more than five months, only a single blow was attributed to him, and no recovery was to be made from him, a case for bail was made out. The court accordingly admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that parity in treatment with co-accused already granted bail, coupled with prolonged incarceration and the nature of the specific role attributed, constitutes sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
- Does prolonged incarceration without the necessity of further investigation justify the grant of bail in non-bailable offences?
- Whether the absence of recovery from an accused person strengthens their case for post-arrest bail?
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,148 of 2000, dated 24-3-2000 under sections 382, 337-A(ii), 337-A(iii), 337-F(i), 337-F(v), 337-F(iii), 337-L(ii) and 148/149, P.P.C., Police Station, Sadar Arifwala.
2. The prosecution story as given in the F.I.R. Briefly stated is that on the fateful day at about 11-30 a.m. When complainant and his son Muhammad Ahmad went to irrigate his land, the complainant saw Abdul Jabbar making a cut at the Nakka and irrigating his land unauthorisedly when he objected to that they exchanged hot words and in the meanwhile accused. Nisar armed with an iron fist, Muhammad Abbas armed with Sota, Ghulam Murtaza armed with 7 m.m. Rifle, Abdul Ghaffar armed with Sota and Abdul Jabbar armed with Kassi alongwith four others came there.
Abdul Jabbar gave Kassi blow on the head of Muhammad Ahmad, Muhammad Abbas gave Sota blow on him and Ghulam Murtaza gave a blow on the neck of Bashir Ahmad. Abdul Jabbar snatched rifle of Bashir Ahmad, whereas Abdul Ghaffar gave a Sota blow on the right hand of Bashir Ahmad. Ghulam Murtaza gave a butt blow with the 7 m.m. Rifle on the mouth of Bashir Ahmad and Abdul Ghaffar gave two Sota blows to Ahmad, Abbas also gave a blow to Ahmad. The role attributed to Nisar Ahmad petitioner is that he gave a fist blow on the neck of Bashir Ahmad on account of which nasal bone was fractured. Abdul Ghaffar gave blows to Bashir Ahmad and Abbas gave a blow on the upper part of an eye of Bashir Ahmad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that all the co-accused are already on bail, that no iron fist was recovered from the petitioner, that petitioner is behind the bars eversince his arrest and is no more required for further investigation. None appeared for the. State.
The Investigating Officer appearing in Court does not deny that all the co-accused are already on bail.
4. Heard.
5. Admittedly petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than five months and all the co- accused are on bail. He was attributed only one blow and nothing has been recovered from him. In these circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition and it is directed that petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- HABIB AHMAD vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 97