ABID BASHIR vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arising from FIR No. 302/2009 involving charges under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of murder and the specific role attributed to him in the FIR. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the registration of the case appeared to be motivated by mala fide intent due to prior litigation involving the petitioner's father. Furthermore, the Court observed that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular account, as the injuries attributed to the petitioner were inconsistent with the post-mortem findings, and no incriminating recovery was made from him during the investigation. The Court affirmed the principle that where there is a strong possibility of mala fide prosecution and significant discrepancies between medical evidence and the ocular account, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.
- Does a contradiction between medical evidence and the ocular account constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can the existence of prior litigation between the parties support a finding of mala fide intent in the registration of an FIR?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when no recovery is effected from him during the investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A1, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A2, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F3, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L2, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H2, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. Through this petition under Section 497 Cr.P.0 petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No,302/2009 for the offences under Sections 302/109/148/149 PPC registered at Police Station Sadar Jaranwala. District Faisalabad.
2. Brief facts as penned in the FIR is that petitioner along with other co-accused in furtherance of their common intention while forming unlawful assembly launched an attack and caused injuries to Nadeem Akbar and Waqas Amir due to which they died at the spot. Hence this case.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner has been involved in this case with malafide intention because father of petitioner namely Bashir Ahmed is a witness against the brother and son of the complainant in case FIR No,569/2004 for the offences under Sections 337-Al, A2, F3, L2, H2/148/149 PPC registered at Police Station Jaranwala; medical evidence contradicts the ocular account. During the investigation petitioner has been found empty handed and no recovery has been affected from him and that both Nadeem Akbar and Waqas Amir have been died due to firing made by Riaz Ahmed co-accused of the petitioner.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for complainant assisted by learned Law Officer has vehemently opposed, the bail application on the ground that petitioner is named in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role of causing fire arm injuries to the deceased and it's a day light occurrence; that there is no previous enmity between the parties. Lastly learned counsel contends that petitioner is not entitled for any discretionary relief.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Bare perusal of record reveals that father of petitioner namely Bashir Ahmed is a witness against the brother and son of the complainant in case FIR No,569/2004 for the offences under Sections 337.A-1, A-2, F-3, L2, H-2/148/149 PPC registered at Police Station Jaranwala District Faisalabad and the registration of present case with malafide intention against the petitioner due to the revenge that father of petitioner is pursuing the said case could not be ruled out. According to post mortem examination report Injury No, 1 is on the upper arm which is attributed to Babar Mushtaq co- accused of the petitioner while Injury No, 2 is exit wound of said Injury No, 1, so medical evidence contradicts the ocular account; during investigation no recovery has been affected from the petitioner.
7. In the above circumstances, I find it a fit case for grant of bail, accordingly this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.