MUHAMMAD WARIS and 4 others vs STATE
This petition for pre-arrest bail arose from an F.I.R. registered under Sections 324, 379, 427, 452, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving allegations of a murderous assault and property damage. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated due to a pre-existing land dispute and that the case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the petitioners' specific nomination in the F.I.R. and the gravity of the offences, which fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497. The Court observed that while Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were attributed specific roles of causing firearm injuries and required further investigation regarding recoveries, Petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 faced only general allegations. Consequently, the Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail for Petitioners Nos. 3 to 5, finding their case merited further inquiry, while dismissing the bail petition for Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 due to the specific allegations and pending recoveries.
- Does the existence of a civil land dispute between parties automatically entitle accused persons to pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted to some co-accused while being denied to others based on the specificity of the allegations?
- Does the requirement for recovery of weapons and stolen material preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioners Muhammad Waris, Muhammad Tariq, Ghulam Haider, Luqma and Muhammad Shafique, are seeking pre-arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No. 266, dated 13.9.2006, offences under Sections 324, 379, 427, 452, 148 and 149 PPC, registered at Police Station, Kakrali, District Gujrat for the allegations that the petitioners, variously armed with deadly weapons, launched a murderous assault upon Muhammad Ilyas, nephew of the complainant and thereby caused injuries, hence, this case.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners are innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with malafide intention. In fact, there is a dispute over some land, which was owned by the petitioners and the complainant party forcibly occupied the same and the alleged occurrence took place. Further contends that there is a civil litigation between the parties and the case has been lodged to black mail the petitioners, which makes their case that of further inquiry within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497 Cr.P.C. The injuries suffered by the injured PW are self-inflicted, therefore, the petitioners deserve the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel has placed following case law:-- (i)2006 P.Cr.L.J. 1087 Lahore (Imdad All vs. The State).
(ii) 1982 SCM R 626 (Muhammad Ashraf vs. The State).
(iii) 2005 M LD 535 Lahore (Ali Sher vs. The State).
(iv)2004 P.Cr.L.J. 277 Lahore Malik Muhammad Ashraf vs. The State) and (v)PLD 1989 Supreme Court 347 (Meeran Bus vs. The State and another).
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail petition contending that the petitioners are specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing injuries to nephew of the complainant. The offence under Section 324 PPC falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., hence, the petitioners do not deserve for any concession of extraordinary relief.
4. Having given the profound consideration to the respective arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it transpires that as per FIR.; specific role of firing at the spot and causing injuries to the injured PW is attributed to the petitioners. As per investigation of the police the petitioners were found to be guilty. They demolished the boundary wall of the complainant's house and also demolished one room and removed the superstructure. Recovery of weapons, used in the occurrence and the material removed from the place of occurrence, is yet to be made from the petitioners. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were attributed specific role in the F.I.R. and general allegation of demolishing the house has been levelled against Petitioners No. 3 to 5, whereas, they were said to be armed with deadly weapons.
5. In this view of the matter, case of Petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 calls for further inquiry into their guilt, thus, this bail petition is allowed to their extent and ad-interim pre-arrest bail, already granted to them by this Court on 10.10.2006, is hereby confirmed, subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
6. Since, Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing firearm injury to one Muhammad Ryas, nephew of the complainant. Recoveries are yet to be effect from them.
They were found to be guilty by the police. In these circumstances, no case for grant of extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail is made out, therefore, to their extent, this bail petition is dismissed.