MUHAMMAD MUNIR AHMED vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Muhammad Munir Ahmed in case F.I.R. No. 135 of 2007 registered under sections 302, 148, 149, 324, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Thikhriwala, District Faisalabad. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, who was attributed aerial firing and raising lalkaras without causing any physical injury to the deceased, is entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and held that the absence of crime empties at the scene of the occurrence, coupled with the nature of the specific allegations of aerial firing and lack of physical injury, brought the petitioner's case within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that where an accused is only attributed aerial firing and no recovery of crime empties corroborates the presence of such firing at the spot, reasonable grounds exist for further inquiry into the accused's guilt, warranting the grant of bail.
- Is an accused specifically named in the F.I.R. for aerial firing and raising lalkaras entitled to post-arrest bail when no physical injury is attributed to him?
- Does the absence of crime empties at the scene of the occurrence create a case of further inquiry for an accused alleged to have engaged in aerial firing?
- Whether an accused charged under the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be granted bail when his active participation requires further inquiry?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RANA ZAHID MAHMOOD, J.--- This is a post arrest bail in case F.I.R No,135 of 2007, dated 27-2-2007, registered under sections 302, 148, 149, 324 and 109 P.P.C, at Police Station Thikhriwala, District Faisalabad, wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was armed with a pistol while the co-accused were armed with hatchets and Datters and waylaid Imtiaz alias Gudda deceased brother of the complainant and murdered him by infliction of hatchets and Datters blows whereas the petitioner continued firing with his pistol in the air and raised lalkaras that anybody who came forward to rescue the deceased would be murdered. Motive for the occurrence is previous litigation between the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not attributed any overt act in the commission, of the offence and has been falsely involved and submitted that even there is no proof of aerial firing by the petitioner due to non-availability of any crime empties of pistol from the place of occurrence on the first visit of the police on the site after the occurrence. He submitted that the recovery of pistol from the petitioner has been planted upon him and the petitioner has been involved simply because petitioner and co-accused are from one family and closely related to each other. The learned counsel has submitted that petitioner is in jail since 26-4-2007 and trial has not made any progress. He submitted that case against the petitioner requires further inquiry and he is, therefore, entitled to bail.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R for firing in order to stop the complainant party and the P. Ws. To rescue the deceased and submitted that recovery of pistol has been made from the petitioner and in the investigation he has also been found guilty. It is submitted that offence falls within prohibitory clause and petitioner is also vicariously liable, therefore, no case for further inquiry is made out and the petition may be dismissed.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
5. Though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R, yet except for aerial firing and raising of lalkaras, has not caused any injury on the person of the deceased, whereas the co-accused are alleged to have inflicted numerous hatchets and Datters blows on the deceased due to previous enmity of litigation between the parties. Crime empties were not available at the scene of occurrence when police visited the site after about three hours on the registration of the case which fact, prime facie, coupled with the allegation of aerial firing brings the case of the participation of the petitioner in the commission of the offence in the ambit of further inquiry. This petition is, therefore, accepted and petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,one lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Judge.