MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and others vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 21 registered under sections 148, 302, 324, 337-A(ii), and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to bail pending trial given the conflicting versions of the incident and the nature of the injuries sustained by both parties. The Court observed that the F.I.R. failed to account for the numerous injuries sustained by the accused party, while investigations yielded conflicting conclusions, with the final report identifying the complainant party as the aggressors. Finding that the specific roles attributed to the petitioners were either ineffective or involved non-vital injuries, and noting the existence of two competing versions of the incident, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioners, establishing the principle that where the identity of the aggressor is disputed and the prosecution's case requires further investigation, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt for bail purposes under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether bail can be granted when the F.I.R. fails to account for injuries sustained by the accused party?
- Does the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the continued incarceration of an accused justified when the final investigation report identifies the complainant party as the aggressor?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Through this petition Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Suleman, Muhammad - Hayat, Said Khan, Ashiq Rasool and Muhammad Ramzan son of Abdul Rehman petitioners have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.21 registered at Police Station Jaura Kalan, District Khushab on 25-5-2002 for offences under sections 148/302/324/337-A(ii)/149, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that admittedly none of the present petitioners had caused any injury to Abdul Rauf deceased. According to the F.I.R. Muhammad Ramzan son of Muhammad Khan petitioner No.1 and Muhammad Suleman petitioner No.2 had only indulged in ineffective firing and admittedly they had not caused any injury to any person. The injury attributed to Muhammad Hayat petitioner No.3 on the left lower leg of Barkhurdar P.W. Was on a non-vital part of the body of the said witness. The injury attributed to Ashiq Rasool petitioner No.5 on the head of Naib Rasool P.W. Was declared to be simple in nature. Said Khan petitioner No.4 and Muhammad Ramzan son of Abdul Rehman petitioner No.6 had allegedly caused hatchet blows on the head of Said Rasool complainant along with Ghulam Rasool co-accused but instead of three injuries the complainant had sustained only two injuries on head and, thus, it is not readily discernible as to whether the allegations against these two petitioners are factually correct or not. The case in hand is one of two versions, one advanced by the complainant party in the F.I.R. And the other advanced by the accused party through a statement made by Muhammad Khan co-accused of the petitioners before the Investigating Officer. From the complainant's side one person had lost his life and three others had sustained injuries and the total number of injuries sustained by the complainant party was seven.
As against that as many as seven persons belonging to the accused party had sustained 35 injuries on different parts of their bodies and such injuries had been caused by fire-arm, sharp- edged and blunt weapons. It may be relevant to mention here that according to the F.I.R. Only one person belonging to the accused party and received injuries at the hands of the complainant party and the F.I.R. Is completely silent regarding injuries sustained by the other six persons belonging to the accused party. During various investigations of this case different Investigating Officers had arrived at different conclusions and in the last investigation it had conclusively been opined that it was the complainant party of this case which had aggressed against the accused party and resultantly a challan has already been submitted in this case depicting the complainant party as the aggressor party. In these circumstances it is yet to be established before the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence as to which party was in fact the aggressor. As already observed above, the challan in this case has already been submitted and, thus, continued custody of the petitioners in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. The petitioners have already spent about eight months in jail in connection with this case.
3.For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.