FAREED vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 342/2004 registered under Section 302/109/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kameer, District Sahiwal, relating to a murder involving firearm injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 given contradictory statements in a subsequent private complaint and a negative forensic report. The Lahore High Court accepted the bail application, holding that general allegations of firing, specific attribution of the fatal injury to a co-accused in a private complaint, a negative Forensic Science Laboratory report regarding the weapon and recovered empties, and pending civil litigation between the parties collectively brought the petitioner's case within the scope of further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where a complainant's subsequent private complaint contradicts the initial F.I.R. regarding the attribution of a fatal injury and ballistic reports are negative, the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of further inquiry.
- Does a contradiction between the initial F.I.R. and a subsequent private complaint regarding the attribution of a fatal injury warrant post-arrest bail?
- Whether a negative Forensic Science Laboratory report matching a recovered weapon with crime empties constitutes a ground for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Can pending civil litigation between parties be considered as a factor indicating the possibility of false implication in a criminal bail matter?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 342/2004, dated 01.1.2004 registered under Section 302/109/148/149 PPC at Police Station. Kameer, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly the allegation in the F.I.R. is that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused while armed with different weapons started firing at the complainant party out of which one fire shot hit Sh.
Muhammad complainant's son on his chest, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Hence, the present case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that general allegation of firing has been leveled against the petitioner but the complainant has filed a private complaint in the Court of learned Sessions Judge and in Para No, 3 of the said private complaint he has specifically attributed the injury received by Sh. Muhammad deceased to Muhammad Akram son of Walia and according to medical report it was a pallet injury. It is also contended that the empty collected from the spot and the gun recovered from the petitioner was not matched according to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory. It is further contended that the possibility of involvement of the petitioner in the present case with mala fide intention cannot be ruled out as the civil litigation is pending between the parties as well. it is lastly contended that the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry.
4. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, opposes this application on the ground that the petitioner is the main accused as he alongwith his co-accused had come at the spot and also fired at the deceased as well as the complainant. It is also contended that a gun as well as 50 empties of 12 bore gun were also recovered from the spot. which shows that number of persons had participated in the alleged occurrence.
5. I have heard the learned' counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The general allegation of tiring was only leveled against the six accused persons including the present petitioner while the were armed with different weapons and fired at the deceased Sh. Muhammad in his chest but subsequently the complainant himself has filed a private complaint in which he has specifically alleged that Sh. Muhammad received injury by the firing of Muhammad -Akram son of Wallia and not from the firing allegedly made by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the gun allegedly recovered from the petitioner during investigation was sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory alongwith the empties collected from the spot and report is negative. The possibility of false implication of the petitioner in the present case due to previous civil. litigation pending between both the parties cannot be ruled out. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case of further inquiry. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.