MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail on behalf of four petitioners involved in a criminal case. The core legal question concerns whether the remaining three petitioners, to whom no specific overt acts, injuries, or effective roles were attributed in the First Information Report, are entitled to post-arrest bail, particularly when the State does not object. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn concerning the first petitioner, who was alleged to have caused fatal injuries. However, the court accepted the petition regarding the other three petitioners, holding that the absence of attributed overt acts and the concession by the State warrant the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that where no overt act or injury is attributed to accused persons in the crime report and the prosecution concedes, they establish a case for further inquiry under the law, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted to accused persons when no specific overt acts or injuries are attributed to them in the First Information Report?
- Can a bail petition be partially withdrawn for one petitioner while being pressed for others?
- Does the concession of the State regarding the lack of incriminating roles influence the grant of bail?
ORDER
' Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the case at some length wants to withdraw this petition on behalf of Muhammad Arshad petitioner No,1, so this petition to the extent of Muhammad Arshad is dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as far as Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Ilyas and Allah Wasaya petitioners are concerned, no effective role is attributed to them, that no injury either to the deceased or the injured P.W. Is attributed to them and they are behind the bars since 4-11-2001.
3. On the other hand, learned A.A.-G. Submits that as far as, Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Ilyas and Allah Wasaya petitioners are concerned, he has no objection for the grant of bail to their extent.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, according to. The F.I.R., it was Muhammad Arshad petitioner No,1, who had caused fatal injury on the person of the deceased and also caused injury on the person of the complainant. As far as, Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Ilyas and A Allah Wasaya petitioners are concerned, according to the F.I.R., no overt act whatsoever is attributed to them. Even learned A.A-G after going through the police file concedes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, so this bail petition to the extent of Muhammad Jamil, Muhammad Ilyas and Allah Wasaya petitioners is accepted. They are allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like-amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.