MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the accused, Muhammad Khan, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under various sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an alleged police raid. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the evidentiary discrepancies in the police record and the nature of the alleged offenses. The Court observed significant contradictions between two separate mashirnamas prepared by the police, specifically regarding the recovery of firearm empties, and noted the absence of independent witnesses to support the allegations of firing. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the only injury sustained by a police constable was a simple bruise, casting doubt on the applicability of non-bailable offenses such as Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Holding that the case warranted further inquiry, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions in police documentation, combined with a lack of independent corroboration, constitute sufficient grounds to establish a case of further inquiry, thereby entitling an accused to the concession of bail.
- Does a material contradiction between two police mashirnamas constitute sufficient grounds for a case of further inquiry?
- Is the absence of independent witnesses in a criminal case a relevant factor for the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted when the applicability of non-bailable sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is doubtful due to the nature of injuries sustained?
- Section 225, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. ' MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J.---Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been involved in Crime No, 3 of 2004 under sections 225/147/148/149/353/324/186, 337-A(1) Q & D of P.S. Peer bad on the ground that applicant/accused was wanted in some other crime and in order to apprehended him, the police raided the place where applicant was staying. Learned counsel further submits that there is allegation in respect of firing by the police as well as companion of the applicant/accused but there is no fire-arm injury and the only injury shown to the police constable is a simple bruise. He further submits that the applicant has allegedly been apprehended with 200 grams of charas and was booked in another F.I.R. Under section 9B of Narcotic Substances Act in which he is granted interim bail. Learned counsel states that there are two mashirnamas prepared by the police. In the first mash mama no fire-arm empties have been shown while in the second mashirnama four SMG empties as well as three empties of pistol have been shown and both these mashirnamas contradicted with each other which means the police is trying to fill up the lacuna to cover their statement of firing for which another mashirnama was prepared by the police. He further contended that the applicant has been apprehended and the allegation of resistance is false and that almost all the sections are bailable except section 324, P.P.C., which is not applicable keeping in view that there was no injury nor there is any independent witness to show that firing was made. He further contended that section 225 P.P.C., at the most if at all, is applicable, then its second portion will be applied which provides sentence of 3 years.
2. ' Learned A.A.-G. Submits that since applicant/accused was apprehended with difficulty as his entire family attacked the police and that he was not released from the police custody and that if the accused/ applicant is admitted to bail, it will be difficult to re-arrest him.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant/accused as well as learned A.A.-G. And keeping in view the sections of law appliedand punishment provided for and the discrepancy in the mashirnamas as well as absence of independent witnesses, I am of the view that a case of further inquiry is made out. Therefore, the applicant/accused is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,3 lacs (three lac) with P.R. Bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.