GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Ghulam Muhammad, in connection with F.I.R. No. 32/07, registered under sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the specific F.I.R. against him had been marked as cancelled by the investigating officer, despite the trial court still proceeding with the case, and considering the nature of the allegations against him. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that allegations of aimless firing without causing specific injury to the deceased constitute a case of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the prolonged period of pre-trial incarceration and the fact that the trial had not yet commenced. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, clarifying that this order would not prejudice separate proceedings initiated under a different F.I.R. regarding the same occurrence.
- Does an allegation of aimless firing without causing specific injury constitute a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be granted when an F.I.R. has been marked as cancelled by the investigating officer but the trial court continues to treat the case as alive?
- 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
' MALIK SAEED EJAZ, J.- Ghulam Muhammad-petitioner seeks postarrest bail in case F.I.R. No,32 registered on 27-2-2007 under sections 302/148/149 P.P.C, at Police Station Shah Kot, District Sahiwal.
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the F.I.R, 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 Ahmed 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 allegations 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 F.I.R. No,376/06 in regard to the same occurrence was earlier got registered by Ahmed Yar/co-accused, 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 F.I.R. Five lacs with one surety in the like amount No,376/06. To the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
4. On the other hand, leamed APG for the State, at the very outset stated, that the instant case has been cancelled and all the evidence collected^ by the Investigating Officer against the petitioner has been placed on the file of case F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. No,32/07.
5. After considering the arguments and having gone through the record, it has transpired that the instant F.I.R. 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 F.I.R.
No,376/06 got registered by Ahmed Yar.
6. It is noted that the case is cancelled by the Investigating Officer after submission of challan and the said challan bearing F.I.R. 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 levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R, 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 F.I.R. No,376/06 because facts of each case are to be read independently.