MAJEED AHMED alias ABDUL HAMEED vs STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed by Majeed Ahmed alias Abdul Hameed seeking post-arrest bail in FIR No. 291 registered at Police Station Aroop, District Gujranwala, under Sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail notwithstanding being named as the principal perpetrator with specific firearm attribution supported by injured witnesses and medical evidence. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that prima facie reasonable grounds existed to believe the petitioner's involvement, especially given that the offence under Section 324 falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the favorable opinion of the investigating officer was unsupported by concrete material, compounded by the petitioner's previous status as a proclaimed offender. The key principle laid down is that an investigating officer's opinion favoring an accused during investigation carries no weight when unsupported by record and contradicted by direct ocular and medical evidence.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when an accused is directly named as the principal perpetrator with corroborating medical and ocular evidence?
- Does an investigating officer's favorable opinion recorded without supporting material override consistent statements of injured eyewitnesses?
- What is the effect of an accused remaining a proclaimed offender on a subsequent application for post-arrest bail?
- Does an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Majeed Ahmed alias Abdul Hameed petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 291 registered at Police Station Aroop, . District Gujranwala on 17.04.2006 in respect of offences under Sections 324/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/337-F(iii)/34, PPC.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by me that the occurrence in this case had taken place in broad daylight and the petitioner had been named in the FIR as the principal perpetrator of the alleged offences.
According to the FIR the petitioner had raised a lalkara exhorting his son to fire at the complainant party and had then himself caused two firearm injuries on the left side of the abdomen of Imtiaz Aslam PW. It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the FIR, including two injured victims, have so far stood by their statements made before the police fully implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences and also that prima facie the medical evidence, lends support to the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the FIR. Apparently the petitioner was directly connected with the motive set up in the FIR. After having become convinced of the guilt of the petitioner the local police have already submitted a challan against him. An offence under Section 324, PPC attracts the prohibitory clause contained in sub-section (1) of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the investigation it had been found by the investigating officer that as a matter of fact the petitioner was empty-handed and that he had not caused any injury to any person during the alleged occurrence. The learned Assistant Prosecutor-General appearing for the State has gone through the record of investigation from cover to cover and has then informed that the said opinion had been recorded by the investigating officer in the absence of any evidence or material at all and the said opinion had been recorded by the investigating officer only on the basis of his own open and secret investigation and not on the basis of any concrete material. She has further pointed out that the petitioner had remained a Proclaimed Offender in connection with this case and proceedings under Section 87, Cr.P.C. had been taken in that connection. Even the challan in this case had been submitted against the petitioner under Section 512, Cr.P.C.
4. For what has been discussed above prima facie reasonable grounds exist to believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.