Ghulam Rasool vs The State
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising out of FIR No. 17/2005 registered under Sections 302 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Ferozewala, District Gujranwala. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given that the dead bodies of the deceased were recovered from his house and he was implicated in the commission of the offence, notwithstanding a belatedly set up cross-version. The Lahore High Court held that the recovery of dead bodies from the petitioner's house without a plausible explanation, coupled with the unexplained delay in obtaining the medical legal report of the co-accused, prima facie points towards a premeditated murder and connects the petitioner to the crime. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail application, laying down that dead bodies found within an accused's premises without explanation, along with incriminating material, furnish sufficient grounds to decline post-arrest bail at this stage.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when dead bodies are recovered from his house without a plausible explanation?
- Does a belated medical legal report of a co-accused weaken the prosecution case sufficiently to warrant bail at the initial stage?
- Can bail be refused when the material on record prima facie suggests a premeditated murder involving the petitioner?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RAZVI, J.- This application under Section 497, Cr.P.C, has been filed in FIR No. 17/2005, dated 29.1.2005, under Section 302 and 109, PPC at P.S. Ferozewala, District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly, according to the FIR, complainant's son Naeem Ullah was called by accused Zafar Iqbal as apparently Zafar Iqbal needed him for some business. According to the complainant, Naeem Ullah left with Zafar Iqbal but never returned. On the following morning about at 8 a.m.
Complainant came to know that Naeem Ullah was murdered. The complainant, her husband and other witnesses found Naeem Ullah and Mst. Shahzad bibi daughter of accused Zafar Iqbal dead in the house of the petitioner, father of accused Zafar Iqbal. Beside complainant, Muhammad Nawaz son of Bashir Ahmad had also seen Naeem Ullah going in company of Zafar Iqbal before the occurrence took place. The complainant named Zafar Iqbal, his father and brothers, Ahsan Ullah and Irshad Ullah as accused persons in the FIR.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was an un-witnessed occurrence as no witness is mentioned in the FIR. According to the cross-version, the deceased Naeem Ullah had gone to the house of petitioner along with some other persons to meet Mst. Shahzad bibi. When they were checked by the members of the family, they started firing whereby Zafar Iqbal was injured with a fire on his thigh. The deceased were also killed by the same firing. He further submits that there is no recovery of any weapon from the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that story/cross-version and injury to Zafar Iqbal are self-concocted story. He further submits that if Zafar Iqbal was injured on the day of occurrence, i.e. 29.1.2005, why was he examined on 2.2.2005 after four days? He further submits that the occurrence took place on 29.1.2005, the FIR was also recorded on the 29.1.2005, followed by post mortem of both deceased on the same day. If accused Zafar Iqbal was indeed injured or occurrence had taken place as stated by the petitioner, Zafar Iqbal would have been examined by the doctor on 29.1.2005 as well. The learned counsel also submits that bodies of the deceased were found from the house of the petitioner. According to him challan has already been submitted before the competent court and the petitioner has been declared guilty.
5. The learned counsel for the State supports the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant. However, she adds that extra judicial confession was made before Abdul Ghafoor and Master Riasat, besides, the deceased, Naeem Ullah was last seen by Muhammad Nawaz son of Bashir Ahmad going with co-accused Zafar Iqbal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and anxiously considered their contentions.
7. At first, story of cross version, coupled with MLR of Zafar Iqbal creates doubt in FIR version, but when considered conjunctively with other material on record, it reduces its impact, lt is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that dead bodies were found early in the morning at 8 a.m. From the house of the petitioner for which no plausible explanation has been advanced. The M.L.R, of co-accused, Zafar Iqbal dated 2.2.2005 is also not, prima facie, understandable as the occurrence had taken place on 29.1.2005. Lt is also not correct that petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR, though the name of the petitioner is not mentioned, however, complainant categorically stated in the FIR that Zafar Iqbal murdered her son in consultation with his father and brother Ahsan Ullah and Irshad Ullah. Therefore, it seems, apparently that deceased were murdered as a result of a premeditated plan. As a result of above discussion I do not find reasonable grounds to believe, at this stage, that petitioner deserve concession of bail. Therefore, it is accordingly dismissed.