MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 2 others vs STATE
This criminal petition for post-arrest bail arose from a case involving criminal trespass and murder. The petitioners sought bail on the grounds of false implication, a plea of alibi supported by a doctor's statement, lack of recovery, and their placement in Column No. 2 of the challan by the police. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry given the police's opinion of innocence and the alibi evidence. The Court held that bail was not warranted. It reasoned that the police opinion of innocence is not binding on the Court, and the prosecution's case was supported by natural eye-witnesses who were inmates of the house where the occurrence took place. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alibi evidence regarding the petitioners' presence at a clinic on July 29, 2005, did not account for the occurrence on July 30, 2005. The key principle laid down is that police investigation reports declaring an accused innocent are not binding on the Court when determining bail, especially where credible eye-witness testimony exists.
- Is the opinion of the police declaring an accused innocent binding upon the Court during bail proceedings?
- Does a plea of alibi automatically entitle an accused to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be refused when eye-witnesses support the prosecution's case despite the police placing the accused in Column No. 2 of the challan?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case; that they have produced plea of alibi in order to prove their innocence, that no recovery had been effected from them, that after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that petitioners were not present at the spot; that they have been placed in Column No. 2 of the challan and that case of petitioners is of further inquiry falling under sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that statement of Dr. Nasir Mahmood was recorded on the direction of this Court who had stated that petitioner had visited the said doctor at 5-00 p.m. on 29-7-2005 but all the petitioners are named-in the F.I.R.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This is a case in which occurrence had taken place in the house of complainant party. Not only complainant but two eye-witnesses were present at the time of occurrence. The allegation against the petitioners is that they alongwith Nazra - (proclaimed offender) criminally trespassed into the house of complainant. Nazra opened the attack and thereafter all the petitioners fired at the deceased which hit on different parts of the body. 21 crime-empties of kalashnikov were. recovered from the place of occurrence. There are 17 injuries on the person of deceased, All the eye-witnesses have supported the case of prosecution.
As far as statement of doctor is concerned, he had given, his Statement, on the direction of this Court, According.to his statement other.petitioner had visited his clinic on 29-72005 at 5-00 p.m. while occurrence had taken place on 30-7-2005 at 3-00 a.m. in the house of complainant.
Although police had declared them innocent but opinion of the police is not binding upon the Court. All the prosecution witnesses are natural witnesses and inmates of the house. In this view of the matter, no case for bail is made out: This petition stands dismissed.