AZHAR vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Azhar, who was charged under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with FIR No. 609. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and that the prosecution evidence was insufficient, noting that he caused no injuries. The State opposed the bail, arguing the petitioner was named in the FIR with a specific role of firing a weapon, and that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause. Upon review, the Court observed that while the petitioner allegedly fired a shot, no injuries resulted. Crucially, the prosecution failed to recover any empty shell from the crime scene, rendering the recovery of the rifle without forensic matching insufficient for corroboration at this stage. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was accepted, and the petitioner was granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Does the recovery of a weapon without the recovery of matching empty shells from the crime scene provide sufficient corroborative value to deny bail?
- When does a criminal case against an accused fall within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail if the prosecution fails to provide sufficient evidence to connect the accused to the commission of the offence at the pre-trial stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Azhar petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 609 registered at Police Station Bhalwal, District Sargodha on 06.09.2006 for offences under Sections 302/34, PPC.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case on account of mala fide of the complainant as well as connivance with the local police.
According to the FIR the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased or PW and the evidence collected by the prosecution during the investigation is also not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of offences alleged against him.
3. On the other hand learned DPG submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR and has been ascribed with specific role. According to the FIR he made fire which could not achieve his aim.
Though he has not caused any injury to the deceased but keeping in view his act and participation in the occurrence he is not entitled to be released on post-arrest bail by this Court. The offences also fall within the prohibitory clause.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it is noticed that the allegation against the petitioner is that he fired but the same did not hit to anyone. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 30.05.2007 but his trial has not commenced so far. Javed Khalid, ASI present in the Court after consulting the record could not explain whether any empty was recovered from the place of occurrence or not. He states that only rifle was recovered from the accused during the investigation of this case. I am afraid that in absence of any empty from the place of occurrence the recovery of rifle in this case does not possess any corroborative value because without matching the empty with the rifle it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the recovered rifle is the one which has been used in the occurrence. Moreover it would be seen at the time of trial whether the recovered rifle is proper corroborative piece of evidence against the petitioner or not. All these facts render the case against the petitioner to be one of further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of sub-Section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.