SAQIB ABBAS vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the ambiguity regarding his specific role in the fatal injury, despite being nominated in the FIR. The petitioner argued that co-accused were declared innocent, he was found empty-handed during the investigation, no weapon was recovered, and the medical evidence conflicted with the ocular account. The Court observed that the FIR attributed a specific gunshot injury to the petitioner, but the same injury was also attributed to a co-accused, making it impossible to determine who caused the death. Holding that the case required further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case suffers from significant ambiguity regarding which accused caused the fatal injury, and where the accused was found empty-handed without weapon recovery, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the attribution of a single fatal injury to multiple accused persons create a case for further inquiry justifying the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when police investigation findings indicate they were empty-handed at the scene of the crime?
- Does the lack of recovery of a crime weapon from an accused charged with murder constitute grounds for further inquiry?
- 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 the F.I.R. No,624/2007 dated 19-10-2007 registered under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. At Police Station Kunjah District Gujrat.
2. Precise allegations against the petitioner as per narration of F.I.R. Are that he along with 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 along with 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 further submits' that medical evidence does not corroborate with the ocular account of the F.I.R. 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 F.I.R with specific role. He further submits that the petitioner was found empty- handed at the place of occurrence as per Zimni No,19 dated 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 F.I.R 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 ease is that fire shot attributed to the petitioner as per F. I. R 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 Sabir co-accused, because there is only one injury on the left side of the neck of the deceased. In such situation when it 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 has 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.
Cited by 1 case
- Mohsin Raza vs The State 2021 MLD 1800