MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN alias MAMDAL vs THE STATE and 2 others
This matter comes before the Peshawar High Court upon a bail petition filed by the accused-petitioner Muhammad Ali, who sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Tajori, District Lakki Marwat. The core legal question concerns whether general allegations, a night-time occurrence, and lack of specific attribution of injuries between co-accused render the case one of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby entitling the accused to bail. The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to bail, ruling that general allegations do not automatically constitute further inquiry when eyewitness accounts, identification in moonlight and by voice, corroborative circumstantial evidence including the recovery of crime empties, and supporting medical evidence prima facie connect the accused to the crime falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where ocular and circumstantial evidence sufficiently connects an accused to an offence within the prohibitory clause, general attribution alone at the bail stage does not warrant the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of specific attribution of injuries between co-accused make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether an accused charged with effective firing in a night-time occurrence identified by moonlight and voice is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the recovery of crime empties and supporting medical evidence defeat a bail petition when the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SAID MAROOF KHAN, J.--- The accused-petitioner Muhammad Ali is involved in a case under section 324/34, P.P.C. Which was registered against him and his co-accused on the report of Bahadur Khan complainant-respondent vide F.I.R. No,281 dated 10-8-2006 at Police Station Tajori, District Lakki Marwat. After having failed to get bail from the Courts below he has moved this Court for his release on bail.
2. The allegation against the accused-petitioner is that on 10-8-2006 at 3-00 a.m., on the limits of village Kumbaran Police Station Tajori, he along with his brother Muhammad Nawaz had fired at the complainant and his brother Akhtar Ali with kalashnikovs as a result whereof the complainant- respondent was hit and injured. The motive for the offence was stated to be previous blood-feud.
3. Mr. Gauhar Zaman Kundi the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was a night occurrence and that the identification of assailants was not possible. It was further submitted that the offence appears to have been committed by the one person but the complainant party had falsely charged two persons including the petitioner without specifically mentioning as to which one of them was responsible for causing the injuries to the complainant and that the above facts make the case one of further inquiry entitling the petitioner to the concession of bail.
4. On the contrary Muhammad Yaqoob Marwat the learned counsel for the complainant- respondent and Chaudhary Muhammad Sharif learned D.A.-G. Representing the State resisted the bail petition and contended that the petitioner is charged in the F.I.R. For effective firing at the complainant; that the parties having previous blood feud were known to each other and that the complainant and his brother had properly identified the accused-petitioner and his co-accused at the time of occurrence by their voice and in the moon-light.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
6. The mere fact that the allegations were general in nature as the injuries were not specifically attributed to either of the two accused would hot make the case of the petitioner one of further inquiry. The record reveals that besides the complainant his brother Akhtar Ali Khan is stated to be The eye-witness of the occurrence and he has charged the petitioner and his co-accused for effective firing at the complainant in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. He has further alleged that he identified the accused-petitioner and his co-accused in the moon-light and also by their voice: The complainant also charged the accused-petitioner and his co-accused for effective firing at him. During spot inspection the Investigating Officer recovered 8 empties of 7.62 bore. The circumstantial evidence in the shape of recovery of empties from the spot as well as the medical evidence support the prosecution version. The evidence presently existing on the record prima facie connects the accused-petitioner with the crime in question which falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to the concession of bail and as such his bail petition is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD ISLAM and another vs THE STATE and another 2010 YLR 721
- MUHAMMAD RAZA ELAHI Versus State 2017 YLRN 203