MUHAMMAD MOHSIN vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner in respect of a case registered under sections 458 and 459 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Phalia, District Mandi Bahaud-Din. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when he is not named in the initial first information report but is subsequently implicated via a supplementary statement, linked by an arrested co-accused, supported by statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and alleged to be the active perpetrator who caused firearm injuries during a dacoity falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that given the gravity of the accusations, the implication by the co-accused on the date of the incident, corroboration by multiple witnesses, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The court consequently dismissed the bail application, reinforcing principles governing post-arrest bail in heinous offences involving firearm injuries and circumstantial complicity.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is not named in the initial first information report but is subsequently implicated in a supplementary statement by an arrested co-accused?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail under serious circumstances?
- Whether statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 supporting the prosecution version affect the consideration for post-arrest bail?
- Section 458, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 459, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The petitioner has filed this application for bail after-arrest in F.I.R.
No,402 dated 22-8-2005 under sections 458/459, P.P.C. Police Station, Phalia District Mandi Bahaud-Din.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R., three accused persons entered into the house of the complainant and directed the inmates on the gun point to handover whatever they possessed. In the meanwhile, scuffle started between the accused persons and the complainant. The complainant clasped one of the accused namely Qaiser Ali into his arms. To get accused released, his co- accused started firing. About 10 injuries were caused by firing to the complainant by the accused persons. The accused Qaiser Ali was arrested at the spot in the above circumstances.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. He was involved subsequently in a supplementary statement. He also submits that in the daily diary No,19, dated 30-9-2005 he was declared innocent. He adds that co-accused Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Qasam and Muhammad Ikram who were also named in the supplementary statement have already been released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant submits that Qaisar Ali accused who was arrested at the spot by the complainant and other witnesses disclosed the name of the petitioner and co-accused on the same date i.e, 22-8-2005. He submits that five witnesses also supported the version of the complainant in their statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.
The learned counsel for the complainant further submits that it was actually the petitioner who had fired shots aimed at the complainant and thereby causing him injuries. According to him, the petitioner remained absconder for one month. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the whole plan was made by the petitioner as he knew that complainant had sold a Hilux vehicle and had 4/5 lacs rupees at his house. Learned counsel for the State supports and adopts the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and adds that the petitioner the real master-mind and active perpetrator. According to her, he was the one who caused fire-arm injury to the complainant and his name was mentioned by the co-accused, Qaiser Ali at the time of his arrest.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is correct that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the F.I.R. However, through a supplementary statement, on the same date, i.e, 22-8- 2005, the co-accused Qaisar Ali, who was arrested by the complainant and other witnesses gave the details of the occurrence in which he named the petitioner and three others as participants in the occurrence. The same version has been supported by five witnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. On the same day. The complainant was seriously injured by fire-arm injuries, however, luckily he survived. Offence under sections 458 and 459, P.P.C. Fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, in view of the overall facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to allow this bail application, therefore, it is dismissed.