MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by two accused persons, Muhammad Nawaz and Sooba, who were charged under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given that they had been declared innocent during police investigations and placed in Column No. 2 of the challan, and considering the age of one petitioner and the nature of the injuries attributed to them. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, determining that their case fell within the ambit of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the petitioners had been declared innocent in successive investigations, no recoveries were effected from them, the injuries attributed were not on vital parts and were simple in nature, and the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is placed in Column No. 2 of the challan following police findings of innocence, their case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Is an accused person entitled to bail when they have been declared innocent during police investigation and placed in Column No. 2 of the challan?
- Does the absence of recovery of incriminating material from an accused support a finding of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can the prolonged nature of a trial justify the grant of bail to an accused in a non-bailable offence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Petitioners namely Muhammad Nawaz and Sooba have sought their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No.418 of 2004 dated 26-10-2004 registered on the complaint of Muhammad Khan son of Mashooq Ahmad under sections 302/324/ 148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station, Sarai Sadhu District, Khanewal.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioners is that on 25-10-2004 at 11-15 p.m.
Petitioner/accused Muhammad Nawaz while armed with .12 bore gun gave fire shot to Allah Ditta dicease0 when he was lying on the ground and his fire shot landed on his right thigh.
Petitioner/accused Sooba was also armed with .12 bore gun who gave two fire shots which landed on the different parts of the person of Mashooq and Adnan injured P. Ws.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Muhammad Nawaz, petitioner/ accused was arrested on 17-10-2004, while Sooba accused/petitioner was arrested on 1-12-2004. That during the course of investigation accused/petitioner, Muhammad Nawaz has been declared innocent and a discharge report was submitted but the learned Illaqa Magistrate disagreed with it and Muhammad Nawaz petitioner/accused was challaned in Column No.2 at the mercy of Court.
Further submits that Sooba accused/petitioner is aged 80 years and during the course of investigation he was found present at the spot but he admittedly did not participate in the occurrence. That no recovery has been effected from the petitioners. That whole family of the petitioners has been roped in this case. Further submits that case of petitioners is one of further inquiry and relies on "Meeran Bakhsh's case" PLD 1989 SC 347 and "Ghulam Rasul v. The State" 2002 PCr.LJ 113. Further submits that the accused whose name is placed in Column No.2 of the challan on the basis of police opinion about his innocence, is entitled to bail and relies on "Farzand Ali v. The State" 1993 M LD 2548.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition and submits that accused/petitioners are named in the F.I.R., specific role has been attributed to them. That challan in the case has been submitted in the Court of competent jurisdiction on 30-12-2004.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.
Accused/petitioner namely Muhammad Nawaz was arrested on 17-10-2004 whereas Sooba accused/petitioner aged 80 years was arrested on 1-12-2004 and they are in the judicial lock-up since then. Muhammad Nawaz as well as Sooba petitioners have been challaned in Column No.2 after having been declared innocent during the course of two successive investigations. So their case falls within the ambit of section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. No recovery has been effected from the present accused/ petitioners. The injuries attributed to the present petitioners/accused were not on the vital part of persons of the injured P. Ws. And were also declared simple.
6. Petitioner No.1, Muhammad Nawaz is son of petitioner No.2, Sooba. Other family members of the petitioners have also been involved in this case. The trial is not likely to be concluded in near future and petitioners cannot be put behind the bars for an indefinite period. All these circumstances make petitioner's case that of further inquiry.
7. For what has been discussed above the petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Jatoi and 6 others vs The State 2020 MLD 1455
- Muhammad Wajid, Etc. vs The State And Another K.L.R. 2013 Criminal Cases 12