Mian AFTAB vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a petition for post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 101 of 2002 registered under sections 324, 148, 149, 337-F(iii), and 337-C(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the rule of consistency, non-recovery of the weapon, and applicability of the prohibitory clause under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that the submissions made by the petitioner bring his case within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing appropriate security bonds. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail, the rule of consistency applies, and offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the grant of bail when the case falls into further inquiry.
- Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused assigned similar roles have been granted bail?
- Does an offence not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Whether the absence of weapon recovery and lack of trial progress constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-C(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,101 of 2002 dated 28-3-2002 under sections 324/148/ 149/337-F(iii)/337-C(i), P.P.C. At Police Station, City. Arifwala District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. As per F.I.R., the petitioner is an accused of launching a criminal assault on the complainant party as a result of which Muhammad Tariq brother of the complainant was injured.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner was arrested on 21-4- 2002 and he was granted bail after arrest on 8-5-2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, however, the same was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 17-6-2002 and since then he is behind the bars; that there is no progress at all in the trial of the case despite submission of the challan; that petitioner is alleged to have fired at the right hip of the injured with a .30-Bore Pistol but the same was not recovered at all despite his being on physical remand with the police for a considerable period; that the injured Tariq had also lodged a criminal case vide F.I.R. No,474 of 2002 at Police Station Saddar, Arifwala under section 302, P.P.C. And also nominated the other accused persons named in this very F.I.R. Who had been declared innocent later on and brother of this very injured was found to be guilty of the murder and he was challaned accordingly; that as per finding of the Investigating Officer, petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but empty-handed and the fire-arm injury was caused by one Latif Dogar who had also been granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate; that as per F.I.R., role of the co-accused Allah Ditta and the petitioner is the same and the said accused had already been enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Arifwala vide his order dated 29-10-2002, therefore, rule of consistency also supports the case of the petitioner; that there is no allegation of repetition of the blow against the petitioner; that there is no previous history of involvement of the petitioner in such-like cases and he is a previous non-convict.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed this petition on the ground that the accused was duly nominated in the F.I.R.
With a specific role; that the alleged offences do fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. But it is conceded that sections 337-F(iii) and 337-(G), P.P.C. Do not fall within the prohibitory clause of the same section.
5. The submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner bring the case of the petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry, therefore, this petition is allowed by admitting the petitioner to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two Lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.