IRFAN alias KALU vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition filed by Irfan alias Kalu seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302 and 34, read with section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to a double murder. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given his specific role in the crime and the supporting medical and ocular evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was promptly and specifically nominated in the First Information Report with fatal and other injuries caused to the deceased victims, his plea of alibi was untenable against overwhelming prosecution evidence, and the offence attracted the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is directly and specifically charged with heinous offences supported by consistent ocular and medical evidence, and falls within the prohibitory clause, post-arrest bail is rightly refused.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused specifically nominated in a promptly lodged F.I.R. for a capital crime?
- Does a plea of alibi outweigh consistent ocular and medical evidence at the bail stage?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail when prima facie material connects the accused to the crime?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' M. BILAL KHAN, J.-- Irfan alias Kalu son of Riaz Ahmad, the petitioner, by filing the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,351, dated .27-4-2005, registered at Police Station Baghbanpura, Lahore for an offence under section 302/34, read with section 109, P.P.C. At the instance of Qaiser Meraj son of Mubarik Ali, brother of Imran Muntazir deceased.
2. Precisely the case of the prosecution as contained in the F.I.R. Was that the petitioner, armed with a chopper along with his co-accused, namely, Muhammad Ilyas alias Lasu, armed with a pistol, Muhammad Riaz, armed with Chhuri and Iftikhar Ahmad alias Kattu, armed with chopper caught hold of Imran Muntazir and started hurling abuses; thereafter, Muhammad Riaz inflicted a Chhuri blow on the right eye of Imran Muntazir, the petitioner then gave a chopper blow on his left eyebrow; Iftikhar caused a chopper blow cutting the throat of Imran Muntazir, who fell besmeared in blood; Muhammad Ilyas started firing with is pistol and one of the shots hit Mst. Sakina Bibi, who was standing nearby; thereafter Muhammad Riaz delivered her a Chhuri blow landing on her chin and then the petitioner gave her a chopper blow cutting her throat, who also fell soaked in blood; both the injured persons succumbed to their injuries instantaneously.
3. The petitioner had been arrested on 20-5-2005 and is in custody ever since. His plea for post- arrest bail had been turned down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide order, dated 2-7-2005. Hence, the instant petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides at considerable length and have also gone through the record brought by Bashir Ahmad, A.S.-I.
5. It has been observed that the petitioner has been duly nominated in the promptly lodged F.I.R.
With a specific role of causing an injury on the eyebrow of Imran Muntazir deceased and the other fatal injury slashing the throat of Mst. Sakina Bibi deceased. The plea of alibi raised by the learned counsel does not carry any weight in the presence of the overwhelming prosecution evidence, wherein the complainants as well as the witnesses resolutely stick to their stance taken in the F.I.R.
As well as the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Medical evidence also supports the version of the prosecution. It is a case in which two innocent persons have lost their lives allegedly at the hands of the petitioner and his co-accused. The offence with which the petitioner has been charged attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. There is ample material available against the petitioner prima facie connecting him with the crime imputed to him.
6. Resultantly, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- ABDUL GHANI vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 795
- MUHAMMAD ZAHEER vs THE STATE 2009 YLR 816