MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE and another
This criminal matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged under Sections 302, 324, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, regarding a murder case involving a blood feud. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite having absconded for approximately three years, even though a co-accused had been acquitted in the same case. The Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the petitioner's prolonged abscondence disentitled him to the concession of bail at this stage. The Court reasoned that granting bail under such circumstances would effectively reward the accused for evading the legal process. The key principle laid down is that noticeable abscondence of an accused person serves as a significant factor that disentitles them to the grant of bail, regardless of the acquittal of a co-accused or the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, granting the petitioner liberty to re-approach the trial court if the trial is not completed within two months.
- Does prolonged abscondence of an accused disentitle them to the concession of bail?
- Can an accused claim bail as a matter of right based on the acquittal of a co-accused when the petitioner has remained an absconder?
- Is an accused who has absconded for a significant period entitled to bail despite the merits of the case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' Muhammad lqbal, petitioner, is involved in case F.I.K. No,1113 dated 21-12-1999 Police Station, Prang under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C. He has been refused bail by the learned Courts below.
2. Effective role of firing is attributed to the petitioner in the occurrence reported by Gulzar Ali for the murder of his uncle Masal Khan due to blood feud enmity.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that co-accused of the petitioner was tried in the case and acquitted by the Court below vide judgment dated 29-8-2002 wherein solitary eye- witnesses of the occurrence was not relied upon. The learned counsel for the complainant and State argued that not only effective role of firing is attributed to the petitioner, but he remained absconder for a long period of about three years and, therefore, the learned Courts below have rightly exercised their discretion by not allowing concession of bail to the petitioner.
4. I find myself in agreement with the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and State as the accused remained absconder for about three years during which period trial of the co-accused was completed in absence of the accused and co-accused was acquitted. Therefore, without prejudice to the merits of the case, bail could not be granted to the accused/petitioner at this stage as bonus for his abscondence, as noticeable abscondence of an accused disentitles him to the concession of bail.
5. The bail application is hereby dismissed. However, it may be observed that supplementary challan in the case has already been submitted in the trial Court, therefore, the trial Court is directed to expeditiously conclude the trial in the case preferably within two months, otherwise, the petitioner could move bail application in the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- BAZIR vs The STATE and another 2014 P Cr. L J 1526