DILMIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
The petitioner, Dilmir Hussain, sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in respect of Crime Report No. 214 dated 19-5-2002 at Police Station Thikriwala, District Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have caught hold of the deceased while co-accused inflicted fatal knife injuries, was entitled to post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner played a specific role by holding the deceased in his clasp and facilitating the commission of the crime, and considering the serious nature of the allegations, his release on bail was not justified. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an accused assigned the role of holding the deceased during an attack is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does catching hold of a victim to facilitate a fatal attack constitute sufficient ground to refuse bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Dilmeer Hussain-petitioner along-with three others, namely, Ibrar Hussain, Shabbir Hussain and Babar Hussain, stands involved in Crime Report No.214, dated 19-5-2002, under sections 302/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Thikriwala, District Faisalabad, at the instance of Ishtiaq Ahmed, brother of Aftab Ahmed deceased of this case.
2. A cursory study of the F.I.R. Reveals Ibrar Hussain and Shabbir Hussain were armed with Chhurris and whacked one injury each on the person of deceased. Babar Hussain top was armed with a Chhurri, but he did not inflict any injury on the deceased. Subsequently, during course of investigation the complainant made a supplementary statement, in which he accused Babar Hussain of causing two injuries on the deceased by means of a Chhurry. Dilmeer Hussain- petitioner was empty-handed. He got into shop of the deceased, caught hold of him and then brought him out. Prior to the infliction of injuries, the deceased had given a flat refusal to deliver blueprint/obscene films to the accused, over which they showed a lot of resentment.
3. During course of investigation, the petitioner was taken into custody by the police on 20-5-2002 and was refused bail by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, at Faisalabad by virtue of his order dated 22-10-2002 on the basis of a variety of reasons for refusal thereof. Driven into this situation, he has approached this Court by filing the instant petition seeking same relief.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that trumped up accusations have been brought against the petitioner; that he has been falsely roped in this case due to animosity and has not committed the offence imputed to him and that he is behind the bars for the last about nine months. Adds that although challan was submitted to the Court, yet, prosecution has not produced a single witness in the case and is using dilatory tactics. He ends his arguments with the submission that true import of Lalkara is to be determined by the trial Court after recording of some material evidence and that allegation of Japha was unnatural and improbable one.
5. As against this, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned counsel for the State submits that name of the petitioner is mentioned in the first information report; that specific role has been assigned to him; that motive was strong and that he is guilty of offence by virtue of application of section 34, P.P.C. And now the case is fixed for recording of prosecution evidence on 8-3-2003.
6. I have with full care and devotion heard and considered respective arguments of learned counsel for both the sides. The petitioner alongwith others arrived at shop of the deceased. He got into the shop of Aftab Ahmad, hugged him and brought him out of the shop. Thereafter, his co- accused launched a deliberate forceful A attack on him by means of Chhuris, who died before reaching the hospital. By holding the deceased in his clasp, he facilitated commission of crime in question. Allegation against the petitioner is of serious nature. His release on bail at this stage is not justified. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed being devoid of force.
Cited by 1 case
- Muhammad Idrees vs The State And Another K.L.R. 2012 Criminal Cases 22