Muhammad Khalid vs The State
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 155 registered under sections 302/148/149/109, PPC, and section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under section 497(2), Cr.P.C., given that the FIR did not specify any weapon attributed to him, no recovery was effected from him, and police findings indicated he was empty-handed. The court held that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C., requiring further inquiry, and that the commencement of the trial does not defeat the statutory right to bail in such circumstances. The court laid down the principle that where an accused is not attributed any specific weapon or overt act causing injury and is found to be empty-handed during investigation, his case warrants further probe under section 497(2), Cr.P.C., entitling him to bail notwithstanding the commencement of the trial.
- Does a case fall under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. for further inquiry where no weapon is attributed to the accused and no recovery is effected from him?
- Can the commencement of a trial defeat the statutory right to bail when the case requires further probe under section 497(2), Cr.P.C.?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J. - Muhammad Khalid-petitioner has sought Post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 155, registered at Police Station New Multan, on 13.3.2005, for offences under sections 302/148/149/109, PPC, read with section 13 of the. Pakistan Arms Ordinance- XX, 1965.
2. According to FIR, the petitioner and six other accused, who were armed with deadly weapons launched criminal assault upon the complainant party, white they were going back to their houses on 13.3.2005 at 8:50 p.m. The fire Caused by Muhammad Ayub-accused by Repeater Gun hit Akbar Ali, brother of the complainant, who died at the spot. However accdrding to FIR Ayub also lost his life due to firing caused by rest of the accused.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, it has been noticed that it has not been mentioned in the FIR as to what weapon the petitioner was carrying white the weapons carried by I Muhammad Ayub (deceased accused), Abdul Majeed, Ali, Ismail and Khan Haider-accused have been specified.
Undeniably, the fire caused by the petitioner did not hit either * to the deceased or any of the PWs; during investigation no recovery was effected from him rather according to findings of the police the petitioner was empty handed, In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner falls within the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C, and needs further probe and inquiry. I am conscious of the fact that the trial has commenced but the rule of propriety cannot I defeat the statutory right of the petitioner, Reliance is placed upon the case of Muhammad Ismail v.
Muhammad Rafiq and others (PLD 1989 SC 585). Thus, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees One Lac, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. .