GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Ghulam Muhammad in connection with FIR No. 32 registered under Sections 302/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail where the specific allegation against him is of aimless firing without causing any injury to the deceased, and where the Investigating Officer had purported to cancel the FIR. The Lahore High Court held that notwithstanding the cancellation report, the case remained alive as proceedings were pending before the trial court, and that the specific role attributed to the petitioner of making aimless firing without hitting anyone brought his case within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that an accused attributed only aimless firing without causing injury makes out a case for further inquiry under the statutory provisions for bail.
- Whether an allegation of aimless firing without causing injury makes out a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when an FIR is treated as cancelled by the investigating officer but the challan is pending before the trial court?
- Does long incarceration without commencement of trial support the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Ghulam Muhammad-petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 32 registered on 27.2.2007 under Sections 302/148/149 PPC at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal.
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the FIR are that on 14.11.2006 at about 3.30 a.m., the petitioner along with Hadi Hussain, Muhammad Nawaz, Ramzan and Haitam, all equipped with fire- arms, entered into the Dera of Mst. Jannat Bibi-deceased. Hadi Hussain caused a fire from his 12- bore gun, hitting her on her right shoulder; the second fire shot by Ahmad Yar hit her on her right wrist, while the petitioner and Allah Bakhsh remained firing aimlessly in order to harass the witnesses.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he started aimless firing and as such did not cause any injury to the deceased. Further submits that the instant case has been cancelled, as another case bearing FIR No, 376/06 in regard to the same occurrence was earlier got registered by Ahmad Yar/coaccused, which is still intact and the present petitioner is also involved in the said case for the murder of Mst. Jannat Bibi and all the incriminating material collected against the petitioner has been shifted to the file of FIR No, 376/06.
4. On the other hand, learned APG for the State, at the very outset, that the instant case has been cancelled and all the evidence collected by the I0 against the petitioner has been placed on the file of case FIR No, 376/06 got registered by Ahmad Yar for the murder of Mst. Jannat Bibi. As such, he has no objection if the petitioner is granted bail in case FIR No, 32/07.
5. After considering the arguments and having gone through the record, it has transpired that the instant FIR No, 32/07 got registered by Mst. Saban Bibi for the murder of Mst. Jannat Bibi has been shown cancelled after submission of challan before the learned Sessions Judge, vide case diary dated 20.2.2008 and the petitioner is involved for the murder of said Mst. Jannat Bibi in case FIR No, 376/06 got registered by Ahmad Yar.
6. It is noted that the case is cancelled by the I0 after submission of challan and the said challan bearing FIR No, 32/07 is still going to proceed by Sardar Ahmad Khan, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Cheechawatni. As such, the case is still alive.
7. The allegation as leveled against the petitioner in the FIR that he started aimless firing and did not cause any injury to any one by itself is sufficient to make the case of the petitioner that of further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Apart from this he is behind the bars for the last one year and four months and the trial has not commenced so far. Thus, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of rupees five lacs with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
8. It is, however, made clear that observations made in this order would not prejudice the proceedings initiated on the basis of FIR No, 376/06 because facts of each case are to be read independently.