ABDUL MAJEED and anothers Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicants, Abdul Majeed and Muhammad Hanif, who were charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The prosecution alleged that the applicants, along with a co-accused, Sadderddin, arrived at the scene armed with weapons, and that while Abdul Majeed fired a shot that missed, Sadderddin fired the fatal shot. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the evidence presented in the F.I.R. and the Mashirnama of the place of occurrence. The Court observed that the Mashirnama indicated only one empty cartridge was recovered, which caused the fatal injury, casting doubt on the allegation of ineffective firing by the applicants. Furthermore, the Court noted the lack of specific allegations against the second applicant. Consequently, the Court held that the case warranted further inquiry and admitted both applicants to bail, emphasizing that the recovery of only a single cartridge undermined the prosecution's version of events regarding the applicants' active participation.
- Does the recovery of only a single empty cartridge from the crime scene, when multiple accused are alleged to have fired, constitute a case for further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution's evidence regarding the specific role of the accused is contradicted by the physical evidence recovered at the scene?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' KHILIJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---Applicants filed bail application in Crime No,38 of 2005 of Police Station Kashmoro registered in offence under section 302/34, P . P . C .
2. ' Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the F.I.R. Was lodged by complainant Punhal Mazari on 24-5-2006 that on the day of incident he along with uncle Sahibo and brothers Muhammad Nawaz and Nazar Ali were standing at Flour Machine when the applicants Abdul Majeed armed with guns and Muhammad Hanif armed with hatchet along with Sadderddin came together there. It is alleged that first Abdul Majeed fired upon the deceased but same was not hit to him then Sadderddin fired which hit Muhammad Nawaz who died on the spot.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro, learned counsel for the applicant argued that it is a case of ineffective firing. Further the applicant No,2 has not taken part in the incident and no allegation has been made against him. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State counsel, stated that from the Mashirnama of place of Wardat it appears that only one empty cartridge was recovered from the place of Wardat and the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter.
4. 'I have gone through the F.I.R. As well as gone through the Mashirnama of Wardat. From the Mashirnama of Wardat it appears that only one empty cartridge was recovered from which deceased sustained injury. Since no other empty cartridge has been recovered from the place of Wardat it becomes case of further inquiry. Applicant No,2 has not taken part in the incident and no allegation has been made against the applicant. The applicants are enlarged on bail on furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs,200,000 each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.