MUHAMMAD HANEEF and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by Muhammad Haneef and Ghulam, who were accused in Crime No. 52 of 2005 at Police Station Rathodero, District Larkana, for offences including murder and attempted murder. The applicants sought post-arrest bail after the trial court rejected their initial plea. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the specific roles attributed to them in the First Information Report. The prosecution alleged that the applicants were part of an armed group and had engaged in firing; however, the court observed that the role attributed to Muhammad Haneef was limited to ineffective firing with a firearm, and the role attributed to Ghulam was limited to aimless firing, with no specific injuries or direct criminal acts attributed to either applicant beyond these actions. The court held that the applicants had made out a case for bail, as their specific involvement did not warrant continued incarceration at the pre-trial stage. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to the furnishing of surety bonds, establishing the principle that bail may be granted where the specific role attributed to an accused in the FIR is limited to ineffective or aimless firing.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the only role attributed to them in the FIR is ineffective firing?
- Does aimless firing by an accused in a criminal incident constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Can bail be granted when the specific role attributed to the accused does not involve causing direct injury to the complainant party?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5-6/2, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.---Through this application learned counsel for the applicants Muhammad Hanif and Ghulam have approached this Court seeking bail in Crime No,52 of 2005 of Police Station, Rathodero, District Larkana, for an offence under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), D-(i), H- (ii), 5-6/2, 148, 149, 114, P.P.C.
2. ' The bail plea of the applicants was declined by learned trial Court vide order dated 30-1-2006.
3. ' The brief facts of the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Sher Muhammad are that one Piyaro relative of complainant Sher Muhammad had sold out his agricultural land to Gul Hassan Menik and others the said land was in possession of complainant party and they used to look after it. On 9-10-2005, at 8-00 a.m. Complainant along with his relative Muhamamd Bux, Hidayatullah, Imam Bux, Liaquat were making Batai (weighing of corn), at that time accused Gul Hassan having K. Kov, Wahid Bux and Nabi Bux with lathies, Ali Hassan with hatchet. Soomro having gun, Rustam having lathi, Muhamamd Hanif (present applicant) with Klashnikov, Muhamamd Amin having lathi, Ghulam (present applicant) having gun-Sahib having lathi Hanif having lathi, came there. Accused Gul Hassan challenged and abused the complainant party that why they were distributing their paddy as they had purchased the land and directed to stop the Batai to which complainant replied, though the land was sold out to them yet full amount was not paid, hence they will continue the Batai. After that accused Gul Hassan instigated the other accused not to spare them, accused Ghulam fired with intention to murder but complainant saved himself by falling on ground. The accused having lathis caused lathi blows to Muhammad Bux, Liaquat, Imam Bux, Hidayatullah. Accused Soomro, Gul Hassan, Hanif made aerial firing in order to harass them, it is alleged that complainant party raised cries which attracted the other villagers.
4. The accused seeing them coming ran away, saying that this time they were saved and should not be spared again. The complainant party found Muhammad Bux, Hidayatullah Imam Bux and Liaquat had injuries on head and other parts of body. Thereafter the complainant lodged such F.I.R.
5. The perusal of F.I.R. Shows that only role attributed to these two applicants Muhammad Haeef and Ghulam is to the extent that as far as Muhammad Haneef is concerned he was disclosed to be armed with a A fire-arm and role of ineffective firing was attributed to him. As far as applicant Ghulam is concerned an aimless firing is attributed to him besides this no role is attributed to them.
6. ' Under the circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the learned counsel for the applicant has been able to make out a case for bail, provided if they furnish surety in the sum of Rs,200,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
7. ' Criminal Bail Application No,55 of 2006, in view of above stands disposed of.
Cited by 1 case
- SONO GHANGHRO vs THE STATE 2010 P Cr. L J 537