RANGA vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition filed by the petitioner Ranga seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 108 of 2006 registered under sections 302/109/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad. The core legal question before the court was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail when he was nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role of firing at the deceased, despite having been declared innocent in successive police investigations and facing multiple other criminal cases. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the opinion of the police declaring an accused innocent is not binding on the court, and that bail can be refused where sufficient material exists on record connecting the accused to the crime. The key principle laid down is that the court must decide bail matters on the basis of available record and material, such as specific role attribution in the F.I.R. and supporting eye-witness accounts, rather than relying solely on police investigation reports or placement in column No. 2 of the challan.
- Whether the opinion of the police declaring an accused innocent during investigation is binding on the court while deciding a bail application?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted solely on the basis that the police placed the accused's name in column No. 2 of the challan?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with a fatal role supported by eye-witness accounts and medical evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioner Ranga through the instant petition has sought post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,108 of 2006 dated 29-1-2006 under sections 302/109/148/149, P.P.C.
Registered with Police Station Pindi Bhattian, District Hafizabad.
2. Briefly the facts stated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Are that he along with his brother Mumtaz Ahmad, son Welayat Ali and Muhammad Aslam son of Sultan Ahmad were going to their homes on motorcycles, when they reached in the area of Garhi Moreka, all of a sudden, petitioner armed' with rifle along with his co-accused appeared and started firing upon his brother which hit him on different parts of the body and died at the spot.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and no specific injury is attributed to him; there is a delay of 12 hours in lodging the F.I.R., which casts doubt upon the veracity of the complaint. It is further contended that the petitioner has been declared innocent during three successive investigations conducted up to the level of S.P. And motive is also not attributed to the present petitioner.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed this petition and contended that the F.I.R. Is promptly lodged with specific role and the petitioner caused injury upon the deceased. Further submitted that the petitioner is hardened and desperate criminal and involved in 16 cases of heinous nature.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. I have gone through the record. From the bare perusal of the F.I.R. The petitioner is attributed specific role. He along with his co-accused had fired with his rifle on deceased who sustained the injuries and subsequently died. Further the petitioner is involved in 16 other criminal cases of different police stations in between 1980 to 1994 before the registration of this case. All that is to be seen in the bail application is that whether there was sufficient reason to connect the accused with the commission of the alleged offence. In the instant case, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. With specific role of firing at the deceased who had suffered fire-arm injuries attributed to him. The other P.Ws. Have also implicated the petitioner. There is sufficient material available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. The contention that investigating agencies have declared the petitioner as innocent. The opinion of the police is not binding on this Court while deciding the bail application. Court is required to take decision on the basis of material available on the record, a Court while considering the merits of the bail application is required to take a decision on the basis of available material on the record whether there are reasonable ground to believe that the accused is involved in the case and should avoid taking decision merely on the basis of investigation reports and entry of the name of accused in Column No,2 of challan which may be relevant but not sole criteria for grant of bail. In this regard reference may be placed upon Muhammad Din v. The State 1998 SCM R 1 wherein Honourable Supreme Court had refused the bail of the accused against whom there was conflicting investigation reports by the police and the name of the accused and his role had been specifically described in the F.I.R. And there were eye-witnesses directly involving the accused in the crime. The accused was specifically assigned the role of firing at the deceased which firing according to medical report proved fatal which was also affirmed by the eye-witnesses. The Honourable Supreme Court declined interference in the circumstances and only merits to be considered while taking decision by the Court. In the instant case, I have carefully examined the contents of the F.I.R. And the statements of the eyewitnesses who were available at the place of occurrence and find the name of the petitioner in the F.I.R. With specific role of firing at the deceased which firing according to the medical report proved fatal which was also affirmed by the other eye-witnesses and in the circumstances there is sufficient material against the petitioner and his involvement, prima facie, has been established in the commission of offence.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is devoid of any merit, hence, the same is dismissed.