MUHAMMAD ADNAN and another vs THE STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 492 of 2004, registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of attempted murder. The petitioners sought bail after the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, rejected their application, citing a lack of specific malice against the complainant or police. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the absence of specific overt acts attributed to them in the F.I.R. and the existence of a cross-version of the incident. The Court observed that the petitioners were only alleged to be present at the scene, while specific injuries were attributed to co-accused who had already been granted bail. Furthermore, the State could not refute the petitioners' claim of a cross-version and their lack of connection to the dispute. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners' involvement required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The ad interim bail was confirmed, establishing that where no specific role is attributed and a cross-version exists, a case for further inquiry is made out.
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of an occurrence without a specific role attributed in the F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is pre-arrest bail warranted when the prosecution cannot refute the existence of a cross-version of the incident?
- Can bail be granted to an accused when the co-accused, to whom specific injuries are attributed, has already been released on bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioners have approached this Court through the instant petition for the grant of pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.492 of 2004, dated 14-10-2004 under section 324/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Liaqatabad District Lahore on the complaint of Muhammad Athar Siddiqui.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that four persons namely Muhammad Aslam, Muhammad Imran and the petitioners Adnan and Suleman were nominated in the F.I.R. That no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners except that they were found present at the place of occurrence and the injuries are attributed to Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Imran while Muhammad Aslam has been bailed out by the learned trial Court. The petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore for their pre-arrest bail, which was entrusted to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, who declined the same vide order dated 27-11-2004, merely on the ground that no specific malice has been shown by the petitioners against the police and the complainant.
3. The learned State counsel vehemently opposed the instant petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned State counsel and gone through the record placed by the Investigating Officer.
5. The learned State counsel did not deny that the only role attributed to the petitioners is of their presence. He is unable to deny that cross-version of the case has been put forth by the petitioner and he is also unable to controvert that petitioners had alleged their malice against the police and the complainant party. He further added that they were not even residing in the vicinity, so there was no occasion for the petitioners to participate in the dispute of utility bills of the premises.
6. As no specific role has been attributed to the petitioners, cross-version of the petitioners has also cropped up and the Investigating Officer and the learned State counsel could not refute it, the plea of the petitioners that they have been falsely involved in this case cannot be ruled out and the matter of the petitioners of course is of further inquiry covered under section 497(2), Cr.P.C., therefore, ad interim bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed.
Ad interim .