NASIR KHAN vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Mianwali. The core legal question involves determining whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail on the grounds of consistency with co-accused who were granted bail, being declared innocent during police investigation, and the case falling under further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is not at par with the co-accused who raised a plea of alibi, as the petitioner is specifically nominated in the First Information Report with a role in causing injury to the deceased, a pistol was recovered from him, a passer-by injured witness implicated him, and he was found guilty during the investigation for offences falling within the prohibitory clause. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the principles governing the denial of post-arrest bail in heinous offences involving firearm injuries and positive identification.
- Whether an accused person is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when co-accused granted bail successfully raised a plea of alibi?
- Does the mere finding of innocence by the police during investigation automatically entitle an accused to the grant of bail?
- Whether bail can be refused when an accused is nominated in the FIR with a specific role, a weapon of offence is recovered from him, and his case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Nasir Khan son of Shifaullah Khan petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case registered against him vide. F.I.R. No,226, dated 31-5-2007 for offences under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station City Mianwali.
Bail has been declined to the petitioner by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Judge Mianwali, vide his order, dated 5-12-2007, hence this petition.
2. As per F.I.R. On 31-5-2007 Ameer Amanullah Khan complainant along with Muhammad Asif Khan, Sajid Khan and Abdul Ghafoor Khan were going back to their home after attending the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Mianwali. ,Muhammad Asif Khan complainant's nephew was going ahead some paces. When they reached near Khushali Bank and Umar Farooq P.C.O. At about 9-30 a.m. Suddenly petitioner Nasir Khan and co-accused while armed with firearm came from the backside on 2-D car of white colour. They stopped the car and all the three accused deboarded from the car while another person armed with fire-arm remained sitting in the car. Accused raised Lalkara to Muhammad Asif Khan that today they have come to take the revenge and he would not be alive. All the three accused in order to murder Muhammad Asif Khan, fired at him which hit on the different parts of his body. Muhammad Asif Khan fell down in injured condition near the P.C.O.
Aslam Khan son of Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Ishaq son of Atta Muhammad, who were passing nearby were also injured by the firing. The complainant raised alarm. Accused while seeing Asif Khan falling on the ground in injured condition went towards P.A.F. Road on the car. The complainant and others brought Asif Khan and the other injured to the D.H.Q. Hospital, Mianwali where Asif Khan succumbed to the injuries.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that Aamir Khan and Saifullah Khan co-accused have been admitted to bail by the High Court; the petitioner's case is at par with the case of co-accused, therefore, on the principle of consistency the petitioner is also entitled for bail. Adds that the petitioner has been declared innocent by the police during investigation; no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner; general allegation of firing has been attributed to the petitioner and his co-accused; the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry, therefore, he is entitled for grant of bail.
4. Conversely, bail petition has been opposed by D.P.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for complainant on the ground that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; the case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of co-accused who have been enlarged on bail by this Court; Aslam Khan son of Ahmad Khan, passer-by who was present at the spot sustained injury has also implicated the petitioner in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is found guilty during investigation; report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted in Court; offences fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitle for grant of bail.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused. The case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of Amir Khan and Saifullah co-accused who had been admitted to bail vide order, dated 11-10-2007 passed by this Court. The raised plea of alibi before the Investigating Officer which found favour with the Court and were released on bail. The petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role of causing injury to the deceased. Pistol has been recovered from him. Aslam Khan son of Ahmad Khan, passer-by who was present at the spot sustained injury has also implicated the petitioner in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been found guilty by the police during investigation. Report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Has been submitted in Court. Offences fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. This being so, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.