GHULAM RASOOL vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal matter involving a murder and an injured witness who sustained firearm injuries attributed to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the ground of being declared innocent in the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and whether the case fell within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was not declared innocent in the challan, as his name appeared in Column No. 3 and the injured witness consistently attributed serious firearm injuries to him and supported the prosecution. The court dismissed the bail petition, ruling that no case for further inquiry was made out. The key principle laid down is that where an injured witness implicates the accused and attributes specific firearm injuries on vital parts of the body, and the police report does not declare the accused innocent, post-arrest bail cannot be granted.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when an injured witness specifically attributes firearm injuries on vital parts of the body to him?
- Does placement of an accused's name in Column No. 3 of the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 amount to being declared innocent?
- When does a criminal case fall within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that challan/report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted before the Court, wherein the petitioner has been declared innocent; and that it is a case of further inquiry falling within the ambit of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that Mst. Naseem Bibi, who received serious injuries on her abdomen during the occurrence, was taken to R.H.C., Hujra Shah Muqeem. Dr. Khalid Masood, who was posted there, refused to, examine Mst. Naseem Bibi and stated that she should be examined by a lady doctor and referred her to Jinnah Hospital, Lahore, where she was medically examined and admitted.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. There is one deceased in this case and one injured namely Mst. Naseem Bibi. She had received fire-arm injuries on the vital part of her body, which injuries are attributed to the petitioner. She made statement against the petitioner. She still supports the case of the prosecution. The contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner has been declared innocent is totally wrong. He himself has produced copy of challan/report under section 173, Cr.P.C., wherein the name of the petitioner has been placed in Column No,3, while his co-accused has been placed in Column No,2 being proclaimed offenders and have been shown in red ink. Hence, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.
4. Dr. Khalid Masood, posted at Medical Officer, R.H.C. Hujra Shah Muqeem, who had refused to examine Mst. Naseem Bibi on the ground that she should be examined by a lady doctor, who was not posted at R.H.C. He should be summoned for 6-7-2007 through the Additional Prosecutor- General. The doctor would also bring with him the record, if any, from the Health Department that in such-like situation a lady cannot be examined by a male doctor. Separate file shall be prepared in this regard.