MUHAMMAD MUNAWWAR alias BUDHA vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 233 registered at Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore, involving charges under Section 324 and Section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, Muhammad Munawwar alias Budha, sought bail following his nomination as the sole perpetrator in an incident involving four gunshots fired at the complainant, resulting in multiple injuries and a fracture. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the evidence and his conduct. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the F.I.R. was lodged with promptitude, the medical evidence supported the allegations, and the weapon of offence was recovered. Crucially, the Court found that the petitioner's status as a proclaimed offender for five months and the commencement of the trial disentitled him to the exercise of judicial discretion in his favour. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner's conduct during investigation, specifically abscondence as a proclaimed offender, serves as a significant factor in denying discretionary relief such as bail, particularly when prima facie evidence exists.
- Does the status of a petitioner as a proclaimed offender during the investigation stage disentitle them to the exercise of judicial discretion for bail?
- Does the recovery of the weapon of offence and supporting medical evidence constitute reasonable grounds to believe an accused is involved in the alleged offence?
- Does an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- 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 F.I.R. No.233 registered at Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore on 4-4-2004 for an offence under section 324, P.P.C. During the investigation section 337-F(vi) P.P.C. Was added to the F.I.R.
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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R., 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 F.I.R. Apparently the petitioner was connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. 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, P.P.C. Which attracts the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (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. 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 offences and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- Sanwal vs State through Additional Advocate General and 2 others 2021 PLJ AJ&K 38
- SANWAL Versus State 2021 PCrLJN 51
- MAQBOOL AHMAD vs STATE PLJ 2009 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1197