PLJ 2023 Cr.C. (Note) 137
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Ali Zia Bajwa, J.
ASHIQ MUHAMMAD and 2 others--Petitioners
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 8471-B of 2022, decided on 31.1.2023.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 148 & 149--Post-arrest bail--grant of--The role ascribed to made two fire shots with pistol, one landed on hand of deceased, whereas the second fire hit one passer-by--Neither any MLC of said passer-by injured nor his statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. attributing such injury to petitioner are available on record--No fire-arm injury exits on the person of the deceased, rather all the injuries to the deceased were caused with blunt weapons--The instant bail petition to the extent of petitioner is allowed. [Para 4 & 5] A & B
2021 SCMR 2011 ref.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 148 & 149--Post-arrest bail--Dismissal of--Petitioners are well named in cross-version--One petitioner inflicted injury with kassi on right hand of deceased, as a result thereof, his hand was fractured--Other petitioner has been ascribed role of inflicting injuries with dagger on right arm of injured PW and head of deceased--The medical evidence is in line with ocular account--The eyewitnesses and injured have fully implicated both the petitioners in their statements--The case of petitioners falls within the ambit of prohibition contained in section 497(1) Cr.P.C--Sufficient incriminating material is available on the record--Bail petition to the extent of petitioners having no merits is hereby dismissed.
[Para 6] C & D
Mr. James Joseph, Advocate for Petitioners.
Malik Riaz Ahmad Saghla, Addl. Prosecutor General for State.
Khawaja Qaiser Butt, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 31.1.2023.
Order
Through this petition filed under Section 497 Cr.P.C, the petitioners seek their post-arrest bail in cross-version registered under Sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, PPC in case FIR No. 659/2022, dated 04.05.2022, registered under Sections 324, 148 & 149, PPC with police station Muzaffarabad, District Multan.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioners as per contents of the cross-version is that on 04.05.2022, at 7:00/8:00 a.m., they along with their co-accused while armed with lethal weapons launched murderous assault upon the complainant party, committed murder of Muhammad Akram and caused injuries to Imam Bakhsh.
3. Arguments heard and record perused. ‘
4. The role ascribed to Muhammad Farooq/petitioner No. 2 as per contents of the cross-version is that he made two fire shots with pistol, one landed on hand of Muhammad Akram deceased, whereas the second fire hit Muhammad Munir passer-by. It is an admitted position that neither any MLC of said Muhammad Munir injured nor his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. attributing such injury to Petitioner No. 2 are available on the record in support of above allegation. The learned Law Officer and learned counsel for the complainant have also frankly conceded that no fire-arm injury exits on the person of the deceased, rather all the injuries to the deceased were caused with blunt weapons. In view of above the ocular account to the extent of Petitioner No. 2 is not supported by medical evidence. In case titled “Resham Khan and another versus The State through Prosecutor General Punjab, Lahore and another’’ (2021 SCMR 2011), the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has enunciated the following principle:
“It is well settled exposition of law that at bail stage deeper appreciation of evidence couldn’t be made out but the Court has to get the picture through tentative assessment of prosecution story, however in order to reach even a tentative assessment, whether the petitioners have made out a case of further inquiry or not, the Court has to glean and congregate the composite effect of incriminating material brought on record by the prosecution, inconsistency or contradiction if any in the Statement made in the F.I.R. vis-a-vis postmortem report and or the situation where ocular evidence is not supported by the medical evidence.”
The aforementioned facts make the case against Petitioner No. 2 one of further inquiry into his guilt falling within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The vicarious liability of the petitioner as’ well as evidentiary value of recovered weapon of offence on his pointing out, would be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence.
5. Petitioner No. 2 is behind the bars since his arrest and no more required to the police for the purposes of further investigation. No useful purpose would be served by detaining Petitioner No. 2 behind , the bars for indefinite period. Resultantly, the instant bail petition to the extent of Petitioner No. 2 is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. So far as Ashiq Muhammad/Petitioner No. 1 and Fayyaz Ahmad-Petitioner No. 3 are concerned, they are well named in the cross-version. The role ascribed to Petitioner No. l is that he inflicted injury with kassi on right hand of Muhammad Akram deceased, as a result thereof, his hand was fractured, whereas Fayyaz Ahmad has been ascribed role of inflicting injuries with dagger on right arm of Imam Bakhsh injured and head of Muhammad Akram deceased. The medical evidence is in line with ocular account. The eyewitnesses and injured have fully implicated both the petitioners in their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been found guilty by the investigating officer during the course of investigation. The petitioners have failed to point out any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the complainant find police for their false involvement in this case. The case of Petitioners No. 1 and 3 falls within the ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497(1) Cr.P.C. Sufficient incriminating material is available on the record; which prima facie connects the said petitioners with the commission of the alleged offence.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the instant bail petition to the extent of Petitioners No. 1 and 3 having no merits is hereby dismissed.
(K.Q.B.) Bail dismissed
0 Comments