SARFRAZ NAWAZ vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition filed under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking post-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 420 dated 27-7-2006 registered under sections 324, 440, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Jhal Chakian, District Sargodha. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in view of ineffective firing, lack of firearm recovery, delay in lodging the FIR, and the rule of consistency applied to a co-accused. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The court held that where no person is injured despite a murderous assault, the applicability of section 324 becomes doubtful, non-recovery of the weapon of offence coupled with unexplained delay in the FIR makes the case one of further inquiry, and the rule of consistency entitles the accused to bail when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail.
- Whether the applicability of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 becomes doubtful when no injury is sustained during an alleged murderous attack?
- Does the non-recovery of the weapon of offence during physical remand make a criminal case one of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail under the rule of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has already been granted bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,420 of 2006, dated 27-7-2006, for offences under sections 324, 440, 148 and 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Jhal Chakian, District Sargodha.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and others while armed with fire-arm weapons are alleged to have launched a murderous attack on the complainant party and consequently, the above mentioned F.I.R. Was lodged against the petitioner and others.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a delay of one day in lodging of the F.I.R. Which had not been explained; that the petitioner was only alleged to have made ineffective firing and no injury was caused to any person during the occurrence, as such the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Were not attracted to the case; that during investigation pistol, the weapon of offence, was not recovered from the petitioner and, therefore, the case of the petitioner was one of further inquiry and lastly stated that the co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Ata Muhammad with similar role had been allowed bail by this Court vide order, dated 16-3-2007 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,547/B of 2007 and, therefore, in view of the rule of consistency the petitioner was also entitled to the grant of bail.
4. The learned Deputy Prosecutor-General appearing on behalf of the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner was nominated in the F.I.R. And specific role had been attributed to him of firing with his pistol at the complainant party; that the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Were fully attracted to the case which fell within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. That ten empties were also recovered from the spot which further connected the petitioner with the crime; that the cross-version lodged by the accused side was found to be false during investigation and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly 12 persons while armed with fire-arm weapons' are alleged to have launched an attack on the complainant party but surprisingly, no one was injured. The applicability of section 324, P.P.C., therefore, appears to be doubtful. The petitioner remained on physical remand with the police, however, the weapon of offence was not recovered from him. Further, there is a delay of one day in lodging of the F.I.R. Which has not been adequately explained and which also creates doubt about the veracity of the prosecution case. The petitioner was arrested on 27-10-2006 and is behind the bars since then. The petitioner is not required by the police for any further investigation as after completion of investigation, challan has been submitted. In view of the evidence available on the record, it can be safely said that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry calling for further probe into his guilt. Moreover, the co-accused of the petitioner, namely Ata Muhammad has been allowed bail by this Court vide order, dated 16-3-2007 in Criminal Miscellaneous No,547/B of 2007 and in view of the rule of consistency, the petitioner is also entitled to the same concession.
7. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.