MUHAMMAD BILAL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Bilal, in connection with F.I.R. No. 438/2007, registered under Section 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the findings of the investigation. The petitioner argued that the F.I.R. contained only general allegations, lacked a specific role attribution, and suffered from a two-day delay in registration. Furthermore, the investigation revealed that the firearm injury was attributed to a co-accused, Faisal, from whom the crime weapon was recovered, while the petitioner was found to be empty-handed. The Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that where the investigation findings contradict the F.I.R. regarding the specific role and weapon recovery, and where general allegations are made without specific attribution of the injury, the case falls under the scope of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of a specific role attribution in an F.I.R. regarding a firearm injury entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Can a case be considered one of further inquiry when the police investigation findings contradict the initial allegations in the F.I.R. regarding the weapon used?
- Does an unexplained delay in lodging an F.I.R. constitute a ground for granting bail to an accused?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.---The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,438/2007 dated 15-8-2007 registered under section 324/34, P.P.C. At Police Station City Muridke District Sheikhupura.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per narration of F.I.R. Are that he along with his accomplices had resorted to firing on the complainant resulting into causing injuries to Muhammad Jameel.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner as per story of F.I t. There are general allegations lied against the accused persons in which it is not really known as to which fire shot hit to injured person. There is two days delay in lodging of the F.I.R, therefore, possibility of deliberations cannot be ruled out. No recovery of any crime weapon has been effected from the petitioner. He further submits that fire-arm injury is attributed to the petitioner as per findings of the police and only one injury is attributed to co- accused Faisal and not the petitioner. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last eight months, therefore, case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry into his guilt.
4. Learned D.P.G. Opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that recovery of crime weapon has been effected from the co-accused Faisal and not from the present petitioner, whereas in the F.I.R. It is mentioned that the petitioner was armed with carbine. He has referred to the findings of the Investigating Officer, who had opined that fire shot which hit Muhammad Jameel was in fact made by Faisal co-accused and not the present petitioner, as recovery of crime weapon has also been effected from the co-accused.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned D.P.G. And have also perused the record. The petitioner is no doubt nominated in the F.I.R. But I am afraid no specific role has been attributed to him. There are general allegations levelled against the accused persons and about which it is not clear as to which fire shot hit Muhammad Jameel and injured him. There is an unexplained delay of two days in lodging of the F.I.R, therefore, possibility of deliberations cannot be ruled out. In the F.I.R. The petitioner has been attributed the role of having carbine in his hand but in police findings gun shot was attributed to co-accused Faisal and recovery of gun has also been effected from the co-accused and not from the petitioner. As per findings of the Investigating Officer the petitioner was found to be empty handed at the place of occurrence. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner.
6. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit him to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
Petition stands disposed of.
Cited by 2 cases
- KHURSHID and 3 others vs The STATE 2018 MLD 724
- ZAHEER AHMED vs The STATE 2015 MLD 992