MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Iqbal, who was charged under Sections 302, 393, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Sections 13, 20, and 65 of the Arms Ordinance, in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Mustafabad, District Kasur. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of his involvement in an attack resulting in a fatality. The petitioner argued that he was not a previous offender, was only accused of aerial firing, and had not caused any injury to the deceased. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's nomination in the FIR and the recovery of a weapon. The Court held that since no crime empties were recovered to connect the petitioner to the offense and no direct evidence established an active role in the fatality, the case warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing the lack of specific evidence linking the accused to the fatal injuries.
- Is an accused person entitled to bail when the only allegation against them is aerial firing and no injury is attributed to them?
- Does the absence of recovered crime empties at the scene of occurrence constitute grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to provide direct evidence of an active role in the commission of an offense?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 393, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance
- Section 20, Arms Ordinance
- Section 65, Arms Ordinance
ORDER
' KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.- Petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R No,48 dated 5-2-2007, registered under sections 302/393/109, P.P.C, read with section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance at Police Station Mustafabad, District Kasur.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his accomplices had launched attack on the complainant party and killed Muhammad Jamil while armed with deadly weapons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not a previous record-holder, only aerial firing is attributed to him, no specific role has been attributed to him. He further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year and six months, as such, case against the petitioner is that of further inquiry into his guilt.
4. Learned D.P.-G while opposing the bail application submits that the petitioner is nominated accused person in the F.I.R. Recovery of pistol has been effected from him and he has also been held guilty in police investigation. He lastly submits that no crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence which could connect the petitioner with the commission of the said offence.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. As is evident from the narration of the F.I.R that the petitioner was present at the time of occurrence while armed with .30-bore pistol but I am afraid, the petitioner had only resorted to aerial firing and he had not caused any injury to the deceased. No crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence which could connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. There is no direct evidence against him regarding his active role. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit him to 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 Trial Court.