MUHAMMAD MUNAWWAR alias BUDHA vs STATE
This petition was filed by Muhammad Munawwar alias Budha seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Section 324 and Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of bail given the evidence and his conduct during the investigation. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with promptitude, the petitioner was nominated as the sole perpetrator, and medical evidence supported the allegations of multiple gunshot injuries. Furthermore, the weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner, and the act of firing four times indicated an intention to kill, bringing the case within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Crucially, the petitioner had remained a proclaimed offender for five months, with proceedings initiated under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that this conduct disentitled the petitioner to the exercise of judicial discretion in his favour, and dismissed the bail petition.
- Does the act of firing multiple times at a victim attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a petitioner who has remained a proclaimed offender during the investigation be granted post-arrest bail?
- Does the recovery of the weapon of offence and consistent eye-witness testimony constitute reasonable grounds to believe in the petitioner's involvement for the purpose of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Muhammad Munawwar alias Budha petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 233 registered at Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore on 4.4.2004 for an offence under Section 324, PPC. During the investigation Section 337-F(vi) PPC was added to the FIR.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been observed by me that in the circumstances of the present case the FIR had been lodged' with reasonable promptitude and the present petitioner had been nominated therein as the sole perpetrator of the alleged offences. According to the FIR the petitioner had fired with his pistol at the, complainant four times causing him three injuries and resulting in a fracture of the complainant's right lower leg. It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR, including the injured complainant, have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences and prima facie the medical evidence lends support to the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. Apparently the petitioner was connected with the motive set up in the FIR and during the investigation the weapon of offence has already been recovered from the petitioner's possession. Firing at the victim not once or twice but four times prima facie. discloses an intention to kill on the part of the petitioner attracting Section 324, PPC which attracts the prohibitory clause contained in sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
The challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and a charge has already been framed against the petitioner by the learned trial Court. It is thus, evident that the petitioner's trial had already commenced. A The petitioner had remained a Proclaimed Offender for a period of about five months during the investigation of this case and proceedings under Section 87, Cr.P.C. had been undertaken against him in that regard. Through such conduct displayed by the petitioner during the investigation of this case he has surely disentitled himself to an exercise of discretion by this Court in his favour in the matter of bail at such a stage.
3. For what has been discussed above prima facie reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged I offences and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.