MUHAMMAD FAROOQ vs THE STATE
This matter concerns two post-arrest bail petitions filed by Muhammad Farooq and Muhammad Ali, who were accused in F.I.R. No. 243 dated 15-8-2008 under Sections 324, 336, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the grant of bail after being declared innocent during the police investigation. The petitioners argued that they had been in custody since 20-8-2008 and were no longer required for further investigation. The State opposed the application, citing the heinous nature of the offence. The Court held that since the petitioners were found innocent during the investigation, their case fell within the purview of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the determination of guilt or innocence remained a matter for trial. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the petitioners' continued incarceration was unnecessary for investigative purposes, and admitted them to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds.
- Does a finding of innocence during police investigation entitle an accused to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused person entitled to bail when their physical presence is no longer required for the purpose of investigation?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, J.---This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No, 11688--B of 2008 and Crl.
Misc. No,11750-B of 2008 as both the petitions arise out of the same F.I.R.
2. The petitioners seek bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No, 243 dated 15-8-2008 registered under sections 324/ 336/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Malka Hans, District Pakpattan Sharif.
3. According to the F.I.R, the allegation against Muhammad Farooq petitioner is that he was armed with pistol and pointed towards the witnesses and exhorted to take revenge from Khizar Hayat. The allegation against Muhammad Ali petitioner is that he threw acid upon Khizar Hayat P.W. And injured him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that after thorough investigation, the petitioners were found innocent; that the petitioners were arrested in this case on 20-8-2008, since when they are behind the bars and their person is no more required for the purposes of investigation.
4. Learned D.P.G. For the State opposed the bail applications by stating that the petitioners have committed a heinous offence and they are not entitled to the grant of bail.
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that after thorough probe, the petitioners were found innocent. The guilt or innocence of the petitioners is yet to be determined during the trial and their case falls within the purview of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The petitioners are behind the bars since 20-8-2008 and their person is no more required for investigation.
6. Resultantly, the petitioners have made out a case for the grant of bail. The bail petitions are allowed and the petitioners are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rs, Two lacs only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.