MUHAMMAD SAGHEER and anothers vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Sagheer and Mustafa seeking pre-trial release in connection with a criminal case registered under sections 302, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Chhanga Manga, District Kasur. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail despite being specifically nominated in the promptly lodged F.I.R. with direct firearm attribution, supported by consistent eye-witness statements and medical evidence, and falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that prima facie reasonable grounds exist to believe the petitioners are connected with the alleged capital offences, notwithstanding differing opinions by investigating officers. The key principle laid down is that police opinions during investigation are not solely determinative of bail when direct ocular and medical evidence prima facie connects the accused to an offense falling within the prohibitory clause.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused are specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with active roles and supported by medical evidence?
- Does an opinion of investigating officers favoring an accused's absence override direct ocular and medical evidence at the bail stage?
- Do offenses under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- 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 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Muhammad Sagheer and Mustafa petitioners have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,297 registered at Police Station Chhanga Manga, District Kasur on 14-10-2003 for offences under sections 302/ 148/149/109, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been observed by me that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with reasonable promptitude and both the present petitioners had been specifically nominated therein as some of the culprits who had perpetrated the alleged offences. In the F.I.R. Specific allegations had been levelled against both the present petitioners inasmuch as Muhammad Sagheer petitioner No,1 had allegedly raised a Lalkara, opened the assault and had caused fire-arm injuries in the abdomen and on the buttock of Ghulam Abbas alias Sheri deceased and Mustafa alias Munna petitioner No,2 had allegedly caused a fire-arm injury on the back of left flank of the deceased. It is not disputed that the eye- witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R. Have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioners in the alleged offences and prima facie the medical evidence lends support to the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the F.I.R. Apparently the petitioners stand connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. As offence under section 302, P.P.C. Attracts the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The challan in this case has already been submitted before the learned trial Court and the names of the petitioners have been placed in Column No,3 thereof.
3. It has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that two successive Investigating Officers, including the Superintendent of Police (Investigation), have concurrently opined in this case that both the petitioners were not present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time. After going through the -record of investigation of this case I have not found, the said opinion of the Investigating Officers to be based on sound material. Be that as it may the fact remains that the petitioners have not been completely exonerated even by the said Investigating Officers as they had found the petitioners involved in this case as abettors and this is why the petitioners have been recommended for a trial and a challan has already been submitted against them wherein their names have been placed in Column No,3 thereof.
4. For what has been discussed above prima facie reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioners' involvement in the alleged offences and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.