MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ and another vs STATE
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners in connection with F.I.R. No. 1032/08 registered under Sections 324, 452, 427, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail in the face of specific allegations of firearm injuries attributed to them in the FIR and supporting statements, notwithstanding a claimed cross-version. The Lahore High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the petitioners' role was expressly narrated, supported by statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the cross-version had been disbelieved during the investigation without any challenge via a private complaint or change of investigation. The court established that offences falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where active roles and firearm injuries are attributed, disentitle the accused to post-arrest bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when specific roles and firearm injuries are attributed in the FIR and corroborated by statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an accused take advantage of a cross-version that was disbelieved during the course of investigation without filing a private complaint or seeking a change of investigation?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of post-arrest bail under prima facie incriminating circumstances?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The learned counsel seeks post arrest bail of petitioners who are implicated in F.I.R No, 1032/08, dated 24.8.2008. the said F.I.R was registered under Sections 324, 452, 427 148 and 149 PPC to be read with Section 7 of ATA, registered at P.S. North Cantt., Lahore.
2. Briefly, according to the F.I.R, while complainant and his brother were sitting in front of their house, the Petitioner No, 1 and his younger brother along wiht 3/4 persons drove past their tractor-trolley in a rash and negligent manner. They also hit into a car of complainants guest. When complainants brother protested against the above conduct of the petitioner and his brother, they started hurling abuses and also criminally assaulted the complainant, etc. At the same time, petitioners also called somebody on mobile phone. Though the complainant informed police on No, 15 but before they could arrive, the accused persons 32/35 in number arrived in three cars and motor-bicycles, in response to call made by Petitioner No,
1. All of them were armed with fire-arm weapons. The complainant's brother, Muhammad Naveed was caused fire-arm injuries into his legs. Thereafter, accused persons forced their entry into house of the complainant and caused injuries to his father, Muhammad Yousaf, and younger brother, Muhammad Khalil with fire-arm weapons into their legs.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, cross version was recorded from their side as both petitioners were also caused injuries, which fact is supported by M.L.R No, 1694 and 1695.
According to him, police larwai' also shows that an application for registration of case was presented by the Petitioner No, 1 but instead of registration of case, same was treated as a cross- version in the instant F.I.R.
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab assisted by the learned counsel for the complaisant submitted that petitioners were arrested by the police from the house of the complainant. The petitioners might have caused self inflicted injuries to themselves to built or structure a counter case. Moreover, according to him, cross-version during the Courts of investigation was disbelieved, hence cancelled.
5. We have heard and considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
It is undisputed that three persons were caused fire-arm injuries. Role of both petitioners is expressly narrated in the F.I.R and supported by statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Though the learned counsel of the petitioners has tried to build up his case on basis of stance of cross version but since the same disbelieved during the course of investigation. Thus the petitioners cannot take advantage of that. Apparently, this fact was conceded by the petitioners side implicitly that is why they did not file private complaint or moved for change of investigation. In the above background, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners lose their colour and fade away. The offence is also covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Thus, in view of the above grounds/reasons, this bail application is dismissed.