MUHAMMAD NAZIR and another vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused in a criminal case registered under Sections 506-B, 341, 337-H(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to confirmation of their pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented. The complainant alleged that the accused had threatened them with firearms, though no injuries were caused and no physical evidence, such as spent cartridges, was recovered from the scene. The court held that since the only non-bailable offence charged was Section 506-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and considering the lack of recovery and the possibility of false implication due to neighborhood disputes, the petitioners were entitled to relief. The court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where the primary evidence is weak and the possibility of mala fide implication exists in a dispute between neighbors, bail should be granted, especially when the alleged offences are largely bailable.
- Is an offence under Section 506-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered non-bailable?
- Does the absence of recovered empty cartridges from the scene of occurrence support a claim for pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the accused are alleged to have committed ineffective firing without causing injury?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 506-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 341, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this application under Section 497/498 Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek bail before arrest in case FIR No, 36/05 dated 2.2.2005 registered under Sections 506-B/341/34, 337-H(ii) PPC at P.S. Gagoo District Vehari.
2. The brief allegation narrated by the complainant is that on 19.1.2005 complainant alongwith his son Khalid Hussain was cutting fodder in his land. Nazir Ahmad alias Jeera armed with carbine, Muhammad Saleem alias Shaman armed with 30 bore pistol, Rashid alias Shido and Muhammad Shafique alias Muna armed with sotas came there. They started indiscriminate firing with their weapons whereas the complainant and his son rescured themselves after lying on the ground: The accused fled away from the place. On the next day i,e, 20.1.2005 at about 11/12 a.m. complainant and his son were going to their land. When they reached near the house of Manzoor Jagra, the accused haulted them on the way and Nazir Ahmad alias Jeera armed with carbine and Muhammad Saleem alias shaman armed with pistol .30 bore started delivering threats of murder to complainant and his son. On hue and cry the witnesses arrived and the spot md the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that the complainant has started a religious school (Madrasa) in his house for the girls. The accused/petitioners Shafique etc. used to play with their peagons on the roof top of their house and as the complainant and his son had forbidden them, they developed the grudge resulting into this occurrence.,
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all the offences except Section 506-B PPC are bailable and Section 506-B PPC is not made out from the contents of the FIR and that the petitioners have been falsely implicated with mala fide intention and ulterior motive and nothing was recovered during investigation.
5. Learned State counsel on the other hand opposes this application.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Admittedly Only the offence under Section 506 PPC is non- bailable. The remaining offences are bailable. Allegedly the petitioners were armed with fire-arms but they did not cause any injury to the complainant and his son and were only attributed ineffective firing. However, no empty was recovered by the police from the place of occurrence. The possibility of false implication due to some hidden reasons as both the parties' are neighbourers cannot be ruled out. Hence this application is accepted and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners vide order dated 5.4.2005 is confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned JudI/Raga Magistrate.