PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 130
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Ali Zia Bajwa, J.
MUHAMMAD ASIF--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 65797-B of 2023, decided on 31.1.2024.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 336, 109, 148, 149--Anti-Terrorism Act, (XXVII of 1997), S. 7--Post-arrest bail, grant of--Allegation of--Committed qatl-e-amd--Further inquiry-- As per prosecution own version, petitioner did not, repeat fire shot--Admittedly, injury ascribed to petitioner is on non-vital part of body of injured--The intention of accused/petitioner and question of his vicarious liability shall be determined by trial Court after recording of evidence--Which makes his case one of further inquiry as envisaged--Under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.-- During course of investigation, it was opined by investigating officer that petitioner caused firearm injury on left thigh of deceased, however such opinion of investigating officer did not find corroboration from statements of prosecution witnesses--The guilt of petitioner and evidentiary value of recovered pistol on his pointing out would be determined by trial Court after recording of evidence--The petitioner is behind bars since date of his arrest--His person is no more required to police for purpose of further investigation--Further incarceration of petitioner in jail, for an indefinite period, would serve no useful purpose for prosecution--Petition allowed. [Para 6, 7 & 8] A, B, C & D
PLD 2004 SC 477, 2020 SCMR 971 & 2021 SCMR 1287.
Rai Ashfaq Ahmad Kharal, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Imran Anjum, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Mr. Tayyab Hanif, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 31.1.2024.
Order
Through this petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 292/2022, dated 23.05.2022, offences under Sections 302, 324. 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), 336, 109, 148 & 149, PPC (offence under Section 7-Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was deleted in this case), registered with Police Station Kotwali, District Faisalabad.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioner, as per contents of the crime report is that, he along with his co-accused while armed with firearms committed Qatl-i-Amd of Ahsan Nayyar and caused injuries to Waheed Ramay and Ahsan Mukhtar.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The allegation against the petitioner as per contents of the FIR is that he caused one firearm injury with pistol on the left shin of injured Waheed Ramay. Medical examination of the injured was conducted and the doctor observed two injuries on his left shin, which were declared as punishable under Section 337-F(iii), PPC, and same do not fall within the ambit of prohibition as contained in Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. The doctor did not specifically mention that both the injuries of the injured are either entry wounds or exit. Record further reflects that the injured Waheed Ramay got recorded his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C., wherein he attributed a single fire shot to the petitioner. No injury was caused by the petitioner on the person of the deceased or other injured.
6. As per prosecution own version, the petitioner did not, repeat the fire shot. Admittedly, the injury ascribed to the petitioner is on non-vital part of the body of the injured, hence, in view of the judgments rendered in cases titled “Muhammad Umar versus The State and another (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 477), “Muhammad Faisal versus The State and another” (2020 SCMR 971) and “Akhtar Ullah alias Akhtar Ali versus The State and another” (2021 SCMR 1287) what was the intention of the accused/petitioner and question of his vicarious liability shall be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence. Which makes his case one of further inquiry as envisaged. Under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
7. During the course of investigation, it was opined by the Investigating Officer that the petitioner caused firearm injury on the left thigh of the deceased, however such opinion of the Investigating Officer did not find corroboration from the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the petitioner and evidentiary value of recovered pistol on his pointing out would be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence.
8. The petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest. His person is no more required to the police for the purpose of further investigation. Further incarceration of the petitioner in jail, for an indefinite period, would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, the instant bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest, 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.
(A.A.K.) Petition allowed
0 Comments