MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ alias CHHARA and another vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Shafiq alias Chhara and Habib in respect of offences under sections 148, 302, 324, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to bail in view of glaring contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry into their guilt under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the specific firearm injuries attributed to them in the F.I.R. were not corroborated by the medical reports, and a co-accused with similar attribution had already been granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where material contradictions exist between the F.I.R. and medical evidence, and a background of bitterness suggests potential false attribution, the case falls within the purview of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does a contradiction between specific firearm injuries alleged in an F.I.R. and the medical examination report render a case one of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether consistency in treatment regarding bail should be extended to a co-accused when similar allegations against another co-accused were found to be nonexistent in the medical report?
- Can continued incarceration serve any beneficial purpose after the completion of investigation and submission of the challan when the case requires further probe?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Muhammad Shafiq alias Chhara and Habib petitioners have sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,644 registered at Police Station, Factory Area, Sheikhupura on 14-9-2005 in respect of offences under sections 148/302/324/149, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by me that according to the F.I.R. Muhammad Shafiq alias Chhara petitioner had caused a fire-arm injury on the chest of Mst. Sajida deceased but a perusal of the Post-mortem Examination Report in respect of the dead-body of Mst. Sajida deceasedreveals that the said deceased had not sustained any injury on her chest at all. During the investigation, it had been found by the investigation agency that the petitioner was only present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time and he had not caused any injury to the deceased at all. Even in the challan submitted in connection with this case this petitioner has not been recommended to be tried for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. It is of some relevance to mention here that a co-accused of this petitioner namely Maqbool had also been attributed a specific fire-arm injury on the body of Mst.
Sajida deceased but even that injury was nonexistent in the Post-mortem Examination Report and, resultantly, he had been admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned trial Court. There is no reason why the present petitioner may not be treated in the matter of bail in the same manner as the said co-accused because the attribution against both of them was somewhat similar.
3. It had been alleged in the F.I.R. And Habib petitioner had caused a fire-arm injury on the right shoulder of Farid Khan P.W. A perusal of the Medico-legal certificate issued in respect of the said injured victim, however, discloses that the said victim had not received any injury on his right shoulder at all.
4. The discussion made above prima facie establishes that there are glaring contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence vis-a- vis the specific allegations levelled against the present petitioners and, thus, the case against them is rendered one of further probe at this stage. The F.I.R. Registered in this case itself refers to a background of bitterness between the parties and in that backdrop a possibility of false attributions against the present petitioners cannot safely be ruled out of consideration at this stage. After completion of the investigation a challan has already been submitted in this case and, thus, contained custody of the petitioners in jail is not likely to serve any beneficially purpose at such a stage.
5. For what has been discussed above the case against both the present petitioners' calls for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.