ZAFAR IQBAL and others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail for Muhammad Ashraf petitioner No.2, who along with co-accused was charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in F.I.R. No.270 of 2004 registered at Police Station Tibba Sultanpur District Vehari. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the conflicting medical evidence regarding the nature of the injury attributed to him, and his subsequent declaration of innocence during police investigation. The Lahore High Court evaluated the arguments regarding the ocular account matching the F.I.R. role and the established principle that police opinion is not binding on courts at the bail stage. The court ultimately held that deeper merits cannot be considered at the bail stage where the accused is specifically nominated in the F.I.R., thereby declining relief. The key principle laid down is that a mere declaration of innocence by the police during investigation does not automatically entitle an accused person to bail when specific ocular attribution exists.
- Whether an accused specifically nominated in the F.I.R. for a murder charge is entitled to post-arrest bail when declared innocent during police investigation?
- Does a discrepancy between the medical evidence and the ocular account regarding the nature of an injury warrant the grant of bail at the preliminary stage?
- Is the opinion of the police regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the courts during bail proceedings?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press this petition to the extent of Zafar Iqbal petitioner No.1 and only argues the same on behalf of Muhammad Ashraf petitioner No.2, who seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.270 of 2004, dated 11-8-2004 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Tibba Sultanpur District Vehari on the statement of Muhammad Yasin.
2. Briefly the facts narrated in the F.I.R. Are that the complainant along with his brother Muhammad Javed Shahzad was present in front of his house when suddenly Zafar Iqbal armed with pistol .30 bore, Muhammad Ashraf petitioner No.2 armed with pistol and Muhammad Saeed co-accused armed with gun .12 bore came there and started firing. The fire shot of Zafar Iqbal hit the deceased in front of his abdomen while the second shot of petitioner No.2 Muhammad Ashraf hit the deceased at his right flank. The third shot fired by Muhammad Saeed co-accused passed over the deceased, who fell down. On the hue and cry of the injured the witnesses attracted to the spot and saw the occurrence while the accused succeeded in running away from the spot along with their respective weapons. Thereafter, the injured Javed Shahzad was taken to the Rural Health Centre and then shifted to Nishtar Hospital, Multan where he died. Hence the present case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Injury No.2 allegedly attributed to Muhammad Ashraf is an exit wound and as such the ocular account is in conflict with the medical evidence; that during the investigation the story narrated by the complainant has been declared false and it has been found that only Muhammad Saeed co-accused had fired at the deceased, and that the case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry who has also been declared innocent during the investigation.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant assisted by the learned counsel for the State has opposed this application on the ground that petitioner No.2 has specifically been nominated in the F.I.R. And deeper merits of the case cannot be considered at bail stage nor opinion of the police is binding on the Courts. Application to the extent of Zafar Iqbal petitioner No.1 is dismissed as not pressed.