GULSHAIR alias GUL MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE and another
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner Gulshair alias Gul Muhammad seeking bail in case F.I.R. No. 87/2008 registered under sections 324/337-H(ii), 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Qureshi, District Muzaffargarh. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail when the police investigation found him innocent, noting that he was unarmed and did not fire at the complainant, and that his case falls within the scope of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and granted bail to the petitioner, holding that since the police investigation concluded he was neither armed nor fired the shot attributed to him—with only a co-accused having fired—the case against him requires further inquiry under the law. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is found innocent during police investigation and mere presence without an active overt act is alleged, the case falls under further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when found innocent during police investigation?
- Does a case require further inquiry when the accused is alleged to be merely present without an active overt act?
- Can bail be granted under section 324 Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when police opines the petitioner did not fire the weapon?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RANA ZAHID MAHMOOD, J.--This is post-arrest bail application after its rejection by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, vide order dated 11-7-2008, in case F.I.R. No,87/2008, dated 16-3-2008 registered under sections 324/337-H(ii), 148/149, P.P.C. At Police Station Qureshi, Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh, wherein it is alleged that petitioner after the fire with .12 bore gun on the complainant by Muhammad Iqbal co-accused also fired at the complainant which hit him on different parts of body.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the police investigation petitioner has been found innocent even by the DSP vide Zimni No,11, dated 20-6-2008 and the finding is that he had not fired on the complainant and was empty handed, however, was simply present at the scene of occurrence. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that case against the petitioner requires further inquiry and he is entitled to bail and referred to 2008 YLR 1964.
' Learned Additional Prosecutor-General has opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. And offence falls within prohibitory clause.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
5. The police has come to the conclusion during investigation that petitioner was neither armed nor fired on the complainant and it was only one gun fire shot on the complainant by Muhammad Iqbal co-accused and pellets had hit the complainant on various parts of his body; whereas through loose net the petitioner has been involved falsely. However, he was simply present at the scene of occurrence. Case law referred to above is applicable on all fours to the case in hand.
Case against the petitioner requires further inquiry. This petition is, therefore, accepted and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,Fifty thousands with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Magistrate.