MUHAMMAD USMAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner Muhammad Usman seeking pre-trial release in a criminal case involving murder. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the delay in the F.I.R., attribution of a firearm injury to the thigh of the deceased, subsequent recovery of a pistol, and the applicability of the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. as the person who initiated the attack by firing at the deceased, that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. was adequately explained by the complainant's efforts to save the victim's life, that a recovery of the weapon was effected from the petitioner, and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court ruled that no ground for bail was made out and dismissed the petition.
- Whether delay in lodging the F.I.R. is sufficiently explained when the complainant was engaged in saving the life and securing treatment of the injured?
- Does a petitioner qualify for bail under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when named in the F.I.R. for initiating the attack?
- Is bail to be denied when an accused is charged with an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and weapon recovery has been effected?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is 12 hours delay in lodging the F.I.R.; that only injury attributed to the petitioner is on the thigh of the deceased; that he has been falsely implicated in this case; that he has no motive to commit the murder of the deceased and that the motive is attributed to the co-accused; that no recovery has been effected from him; that the deceased died 22 days after the occurrence; that two co- accused have been granted bail; that in fact there are 15 injuries on the person of the deceased but the same have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. And that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand learned State Counsel submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; that he is the person who opened the fire upon which the co-accused fired at the deceased; that pistol has been recovered from him; that Injuries Nos.5 to 11 are wound of surgical and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr. P.C.
3. Heard. I have gone through the F.I.R., post-mortem report and impugned order. As far as delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is concerned, same has been explained in the F.I.R. Because first of all the complainant was busy in order to save the life of the deceased and he remained busy for his treatment. He is the person who came along with his co-accused and opened the attack and fired at the deceased which hit on the thigh of the deceased. He remained absconder. Recovery has been effected from him. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No ground for bail is made out. This petition stands dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- BATOOR vs The STATE and anothers 2016 MLD 1822
- KHUDA BAKHSH vs STATE PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 497
- KHUDA BAKHSH Versus State 2008 PCrLJ 708