HAJI MUHAMMAD vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 201, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged murder of a minor. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on the grounds of a one-day delay in lodging the FIR and the existence of a conflicting private complaint constituting two versions. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the delay was duly explained, the petitioner was specifically nominated with an overt act, a weapon of offense (SOTA) was recovered from him, he had absconded for several months, and the private complaint did not constitute a valid counter-version. The court laid down that mere filing of a private complaint after police found a cross-version false does not automatically establish a case of two versions warranting bail.
- Whether delay in lodging the FIR disentitles the prosecution from opposing post-arrest bail?
- Does the mere filing of a private complaint after rejection of a cross-version during police investigation create a case of two versions for the purpose of bail?
- Is absconsion for a prolonged period considered a factor against the grant of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Haji Muhammad, the petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR No, 250 of 2009 dated 05.06.2009 for the offences under Sections 302, 201,109, 34 of PPC, registered at Police Station Kot Chutta, District Dera Ghazi Khan.
2. This case was registered on the basis of Report lodged by Kalsoom Mai, real mother of the deceased Muhammad Ibrahim aged about 12/13 years with the allegations that his son was living with his father Allah Devaya in his house whereas she was residing in the house of her parents. On 04.06.2009 at about 02.00 p.m. they heard hue and cry of her son Muhammad Ibrahim and saw that Allah Devaya, Sabir Hussain and Haji Muhammad (petitioner) armed with SOTA were beating his son Muhammad Ibrahim. Thereafter Muhammad Ibrahim was taken on a motorcycle by the aforementioned accused persons in an unconscious condition towards Kot Chutta City.
Complainant and her brothers kept on inquiring regarding Muhammad Ibrahim from different hospitals but in vain. The accused persons thereafter brought the dead body of Muhammad Ibrahim and concealed it in Sugar Cain Crop.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay of one day in lodging of FIR; that regarding the same occurrence Mst. Jannat Mai, Grand Mother of the deceased Muhammad Ibrahim filed a private complaint under Sections 302, 148, 149 of PPC against Nazeer Ahmad, Ghulam Shabeer, son and brother of Kalsoom Mai and others for causing murder of Muhammad Ibrahim. In the said complaint learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide his order dated 03.03.2010 have summoned the accused persons to face the trial so this is a case of two versions and on this ground the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail. Reliance has been placed on "1996 SCM R 1845."
4. Learned DDPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this petition on the ground that delay in lodging FIR has been fully explained; that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR; that there is specific allegation against him that he while armed with SOTA inflicted injuries on the person of Muhammad Ibrahim deceased along with his co-accused; that during investigation SOTA was recovered from the possession of the petitioner; that after registration of the FIR the petitioner Haji Muhammad absconded himself and he was declared proclaimed offender and was arrested on 30.11.2009. Learned counsel for the complainant further submits that the private complaint filed by Mst. Jannat Mai is on the basis of mala fides as she wants to save the skin of her son and other relatives who are accused in the instant case and he has requested that the petitioner be rejected. Reliance has been placed on "95 P.Cr.LJ. 1558 & 2008 M.L.D. 1358"
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. It has been noticed that delay of one day in lodging the FIR has been duly explained and the complainant as soon as came to know regarding the death of her son lodged the Report without delay. The petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR with specific role that he caused injuries on the person of Muhammad Ibrahim deceased with SOTA along with his co-accused persons. After the occurrence the petitioner absconded himself and his absconsion for about six months prima- facie shows his involvement in the commission of the offence. During investigation SOTA was recovered from him. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this is a case two versions as Mst. Jannat Mai filed a private complaint against Ramzan and others PWs of this case and learned trial Court had summoned them as accused, is no ground for the release of the petitioner on bail as this is not a counter version of the instant FIR and case referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. It has also been noticed that Mst. Jannat Mai got recorded her cross-version in this case which was investigated by Imran Haider SI and during investigation the version of Mst. Jannat Mai was found false and this opinion was also confirmed by the SHO and SDPO concerned. Thereafter Mst. Jannat Mai filed a private complaint on 20.01.2010 after the delay of about 61/2 months.
For what has been discussed above, I find no force in this petition which is dismissed accordingly.