MUHAMMAD ANWAR and another vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of F.I.R. registered under Sections 324, 337-F(iii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail given the existence of conflicting versions regarding the occurrence and the role attributed to them. The court held that the nature of the injuries and the findings in the police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898—indicating the complainant party was the aggressor and that the petitioners were not armed with firearms—brought the case within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the petition was accepted and bail was granted to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that where competing versions and police investigation suggest doubt regarding the active participation or weapon-use of the accused, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail when the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 suggests the complainant party was the aggressor?
- Does a discrepancy between the medical injuries and the allegations in the F.I.R. bring a case within the purview of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,428, dated 8-9-2007 registered under section 324/337- F(iii)/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Pir Mahal District Toba Tek Singh on the complaint of Abdul Khaliq.
2. The brief allegation as per contents of the F.I.R. Against the petitioners is that they along with their co-accused while armed with firearm weapons had fired at Arif Hussain injured which hit him on his left side of chest.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been involved in this case falsely, in fact they were auction bidders of the disputed property and the complainant party was the aggressor who wanted to take forcible possession from the petitioner and during the investigation this fact has been proved by the petitioner by producing sufficient evidence before the Investigating Officer. Keeping in view this situation, the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail because no offence is made out against them.
4. On the contrary, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have maintained in unison that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. Who while armed with firearm weapons caused injuries on the person of Aril Hussain injured and the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of bail after arrest.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with due care and caution. Perusal of the record reflects that the injuries received by the injured person were 1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. And 1 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. And the pellets were also present in the body of the injured P.W.
Keeping in view the allegation levelled in the F.I.R., this injury is not possible, Even the report submitted by the police under section 173, Cr.P.C. Discloses that in fact the complainant party was the aggressor and the petitioners were not armed with any fire-arm weapon at the time of occurrence. In the light of these two versions, case of the petitioners falls within the purview of further inquiry.
6. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.