Muhammad Ashraf vs The State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Ashraf, who was charged under Sections 302, 324, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving firing that resulted in one death and injuries to others. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail, given his specific role in the incident and the conflicting police opinion regarding the aggressor. The Court held that while the police had opined that the complainant party was the aggressor, such an opinion is not binding on the Court. The Court found that the petitioner was specifically attributed with firing on an injured witness, a fact supported by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon. Furthermore, the Court distinguished the petitioner's case from co-accused who had been granted bail, as those co-accused were only attributed with ineffective firing. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, establishing the principle that police investigation opinions regarding the aggressor are not binding on the Court when determining bail in cases involving serious offences.
- Is the opinion of the police regarding which party was the aggressor binding on the Court during bail proceedings?
- Does the attribution of a specific role in causing injury with a firearm preclude the grant of bail under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a petitioner claim parity with co-accused who were granted bail when the petitioner's specific role in the offence is more severe?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J. - The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 210 registered on 2.10.2005 u/Ss. 302, 324, 109, 148, 149, PPC at Police Station, Mandi Faizabad, District Nankana Sahib.
2. The aforesaid F.I.R, was registered against the petitioner and other, co-accused at the instance of the complainant Abdul Rasheed, on the allegation that on 2.10.2005 after the sun-set, the complainant allegedly was going to his house* after offering prayer. Akbar Ali, Afzal and Abdul Hameed were going ahead of him at some distance. When he reached near the door of his house then suddenly the co-accused of the petitioner armed with deadly weapon came out. Arif raised Lalkara that Akbar etc. Be put to death, whereupon Matllob, co-accused, fired with his gun upon Akbar AN, which hit bn his abdomen. Then Yaqoob accused with his gun fired a shot which landed Afzal on .His right shoulder. Taj, co-accused,-also fired which hit Afzal on his face and neck. The petitioner fired with his rifle which landed on Abdul Hameed at his back. Then Mushtaq, co- accused gave but blow upon the head of the complainant. The accused left the place of occurrence while making - indiscriminate firing. The occurrence was witnessed by the PWs and the injured PWs were taken to the Rural Health Centre, Rehanwala, Tehsil and District Nankana Sahib wherefrom they were referred to the Mayo Hospital, Lahore. Akbar Ali injured succumbed to the injuries while en-route. The motive behind this occurrence is dispute over a piece of land between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that actually the complainant party was the aggressor, who had started firing on the accused party; that the DSP and the local police had found that the complainant party Was the aggressor and the case of the petitioner is covered by Section 497 of the Cr.P.C., and that Riaz and Asghar Ali co- accused were admitted to bail by- this Court and the petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the bail application. She has contended that four accused are still fugitive from justice. Further contended that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R, with specific role of causing injury with fire-arm on the back of Abdul Hamed PW and the complainant party has made statements against the petitioner for his involvement in the present case.
5. I have head the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. .During the investigation, the version of the petitioner and his co-accused was that the complainant party was the aggressor and they had started firing first and the accused party had acted in exercise of their right of self-defence. Admittedly none from the accused side had received any injury. Though the local police and the DSP gave their opinion that the other party was the aggressor, yet the opinion of the police is hot binding on the Courts. Challan has already been submitted in the Court oh 6.12.2005 and the petitioner is attributed specific role of firing on the person of Abdul Hameed on his back which is ' also supported by the medical evidence and the injured PW. The recovery of weapon has also been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is prima facie connected with the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner's case is not at par with the case of the co-accused who have already been admitted to bail by this Court as they were only attributed ineffective firing, In such situation, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage and this application is dismissed.