SAQIB ABBAS alias SAQIB vs STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following allegations of murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting evidence regarding his specific role in the alleged crime. The Court observed that while the petitioner was nominated in the FIR with a specific role, the police investigation found him empty-handed at the scene, and no recovery of the crime weapon was made. Crucially, the FIR attributed a single gunshot injury on the deceased's neck to both the petitioner and a co-accused, creating ambiguity regarding which shot caused the death. The Court held that in such circumstances, where it is unclear whose action caused the fatal injury, the case falls under the category of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner, establishing the principle that where the specific attribution of a fatal injury is doubtful due to conflicting evidence and lack of recovery, the accused is entitled to the benefit of further inquiry.
- Does the attribution of a single fatal injury to multiple accused persons create a case for further inquiry regarding bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the police investigation finds them empty-handed and no weapon is recovered?
- Does the lack of corroboration between medical evidence and the ocular account justify the grant of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 624/2007 dated 19.10.2007 registered under Sections 302, 148, 149 PPC at Police Station Kunjah District Gujrat.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per narration of FIR are that he alongwith his accomplices had launched an attack on the nephew of the complainant and had murdered him with fire shot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused who had participated in the occurrence alongwith the petitioner have already been declared innocent in police investigation.
He further submits that as per police findings the petitioner was found empty handed at the place of occurrence. He further submits that no recovery of crime weapon has been effected from him and no crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence. He further argues that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year and four months. He furthef submits that medical evidence does not corroborate with the ocular account of the FIR. In support of his arguments he has relied upon 2005 PCr.LJ 582 and 2004 SCM R 1560).
4. Learned DPG opposes bail application of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific role. He further submits that the petitioner was found empty handed at the place of occurrence as per Zimni No, 19 date 12.11.2007. He lastly submits that the petitioner has been held guilty in police investigation.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned DPG and have also perused the record. The petitioner is no doubt nominated in the FIR with specific role of firing shot at the left side of the neck of the deceased but this Court has to see as to whether offences under which the petitioner is liable to be tried with are attracted in the instant case or not. According to police findings, which of course are not binding on the Courts, the petitioner was found empty-handed at the place of occurrence and no recovery of crime weapon has also been effected from him. No crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence. The moot point of this case is that fire shot attributed to the petitioner as per FIR is on the left side of the neck of the deceased, whereas co-accused Sabir had also been attributed the same fire shot at the same locale on the deceased, therefore, it is hard to determine as to whether deceased died due to fire shot fired by the petitioner or by Sabaco-accused, because there is only one injury on the left side of the neck of the deceased. In such situation when it is not really known as to death was caused due to which fire shot then the case becomes that of further inquiry into the guilt of accused person, especially when no recovery has been effected from him and he was shown empty handed at the place of occurrence.
6. Under the circumstances, petitioner's case is that of further inquiry into his guilt. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand), with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate.
Petition stands disposed of.