MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 2 others vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition for post-arrest bail arising from a case involving charges of criminal trespass and murder. The core legal question is whether the petitioners are entitled to bail on the grounds of a plea of alibi, police exoneration, and a case falling within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners are nominated in the F.I.R., attributed specific roles in firing at the deceased resulting in multiple firearm injuries supported by medical and ocular evidence, and that the opinion of the police declaring the petitioners innocent is not binding upon the court. The key principle laid down is that police opinions regarding innocence do not bind the court, and where natural eyewitnesses corroborate the prosecution case involving heinous offences with strong corroborative physical evidence, post-arrest bail will be refused.
- Is the opinion of the police declaring an accused innocent binding upon the court during a bail hearing?
- Does a plea of alibi supported by a medical witness warrant the grant of post-arrest bail when the time of the alleged visit does not coincide with the time of the occurrence?
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when named in the F.I.R. with specific attribution of firing by eyewitnesses?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- 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 subsection (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 along with 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 29-7-2005 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.
Cited by 1 case
- IRFAN KHAN vs THE STATE 2009 MLD 120