MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Shahzad, who was accused in F.I.R. No. 613 of 2004 for offences under Sections 324, 392, 394, 336, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the inconsistencies in the prosecution's case regarding his involvement. The Court observed that the prosecution presented two contradictory versions: the F.I.R. initially alleged abetment without supporting evidence, while a subsequent statement by the victim claimed the petitioner was physically present at the scene, despite the victim having previously married the petitioner. Furthermore, the investigating agency rejected the victim's identification of the petitioner at the scene, opting instead for the theory of abetment, which also lacked witness corroboration. The Court held that these conflicting versions rendered the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's case suffers from significant contradictions regarding the accused's role and presence, the matter warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the existence of two contradictory versions of the prosecution's case regarding an accused's role constitute grounds for further inquiry under bail law?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigating agency's findings contradict the complainant's initial allegations?
- Does the lack of evidence supporting an allegation of abetment justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 392, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 394, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Muhammad Shahzad petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,613 registered at Police Station, Muradpur, District Sialkot on 24-12- 2004 for offences under sections 324/392, P.P.C. During the investigation sections 394, 336 and 109, P.P.C. Were added -to the F.I.R.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the occurrence in this case had taken place during a night and according to the F.I.R.
The petitioner was not one of those who had entered the complainant's house and had committed the alleged offences at the spot. In the F.I.R. Only an allegation of abetment had been levelled against the present petitioner but no evidence pertaining to the said allegation of abetment had been mentioned in the F.I.R. The victim in this case namely Mst. Saira had made a statement on 6- 1-2005 maintaining therein that the culprits had their face muffled during the alleged occurrence but during the progress of occurrence the face of one of the culprits was unveiled and she had recognized the said culprit to be the present petitioner. It may be pertinent to mention here that according to the F.I.R. None of the culprits had his face muffled. It is available on the record that the victim namely Mst. Saira had statedly married the present petitioner some time ago and, thus, prima facie it is not readily believable that the petitioner had not been identified at the spot at the initial stage either by the victim namely Mst. Saira or by anybody else belonging to the complainant party. During the investigation of this case the said nomination of the petitioner by the alleged victim as one of the culprits committing the alleged offence at the spot had not been believed by the investigating agency and it had been found by it that the petitioner had provided behind-the-scene abatement to his co-accused. It may be relevant to mention here that no witness had got his statement recorded before the Investigating Officer regarding the allegation in respect of abetment allegedly provided by the petitioner to his co-accused. The discussion made above shows that the prosecution has two versions vis-a-vis the present petitioner, i.e, the first version contained in the F.I.R. Regarding abetment having allegedly been provided by the petitioner to his co-accused and the second version pertaining to the petitioner's physical presence and participation in the alleged occurrence at the spot. This by itself renders the case against the petitioner one of further probe at this stage. The investigation of this case qua the petitioner has already been finalized and, thus, his physical custody is no longer required at this stage for the purposes of investigation.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.