MAJEED AHMED alias ABDUL HAMEED vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 291/2006 registered at Police Station Aroop, District Gujranwala, involving offences under sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-F(iii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail, contending that the investigation officer had concluded he was empty-handed and caused no injuries. The core legal question was whether, given the conflicting investigation reports and the petitioner's status as a proclaimed offender, bail should be granted. The Court held that the petitioner was directly named in the F.I.R. as the principal perpetrator, with medical evidence supporting the allegations of firearm injuries. The Court observed that the investigating officer's opinion favoring the petitioner lacked evidentiary basis. Furthermore, the petitioner had been a proclaimed offender, and the offence under section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court found reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner's involvement and dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing that the investigation officer's opinion cannot override concrete material evidence.
- Does an investigating officer's opinion regarding the innocence of an accused override concrete material evidence on record?
- Does an offence under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted to an accused who has been a proclaimed offender in the case?
- 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
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--Through this petition Majeed Ahmed alias Abdul Hameed petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,291 registered at Police Station Aroop, District Gujranwala on 17-4-2006 in respect of offences under sections 324/337-A(i)/337- F(i)/337-F(iii)/34 , P. P. C .
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 F.I.R. As the principal perpetrator of the alleged offences.
According to the F.I.R. The petitioner had raised a lalkara exhorting his son to fire at the complainant party and had then himself caused two fire-arm injuries on the left side of the abdomen of Imtiaz Aslam P.W. It is not disputed that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R., 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 F.I.R. Apparently the petitioner was directly connected with the motive set up in the F.I.R. 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, P.P.C. Attracts the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (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 B believe in the petitioner's involvement in the alleged offences and this petition is, therefore, dismissed.