MUHAMMAD UMAR, ETC vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by three petitioners, Muhammad Umar, Qaiser Khalil, and Muhammad Ibrahim, who were charged in FIR No. 314 dated 1.12.2008 under Sections 452, 324, 148, 149, 337-L(i), 337-C, and 337-F(iv) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners sought bail after their previous applications were dismissed by the lower courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail given the allegations of specific roles in causing firearm injuries to the victim, supported by medical reports. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to bail, noting that they were specifically nominated in the FIR, their roles were clearly attributed, and the injuries were corroborated by medical evidence. Furthermore, the Court observed that the offence fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that at the bail stage, the Court should not engage in a deeper appreciation of evidence, and the police's opinion is not binding upon the Court.
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence required at the bail stage?
- Does the police opinion regarding the innocence of an accused bind the Court during bail proceedings?
- Are petitioners entitled to bail when they are specifically nominated in the FIR and their roles are supported by medical evidence?
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SYED INTIKHAB HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Through this application, petitioners Muhammad Umar s/o Lehrasib Khan, Qaiser Khalil s/o Khalil Mehmood and Muhammad Ibrahim s/o Sardar Khan seek.
Their post arrest bail in case FIR No, 314, dated 1.12.2008, registered under sections 452/324/148/149/337-LI/337-C/337-F.IV, PPC, with Police Station Bhara Kahu, District Islamabad.
2. Succinctly, the prosecution case as gleaned from the available record is that the complainant Muhammad Mashal Khan got lodged above-mentioned FIR by alleging that on the fateful day i.e, 1.12.2008 at about 10:40 a.m. Present petitioners while carrying .222 bore rifles alongwith Haseeb co- accused while armed with .30 bore pistol and two unknown co-accused persons who were armed with clubs attacked upon the house of complainant and caused fire-arm injuries to. Abdul Rehman injured PW. Muhammad Ibrahim petitioner/accused caused fire-arm injury to Abdul Rehman 'hitting on his left shoulder; whereas Qaisar and Muhammad Umar petitioners/accused caused fire-arm injuries to the said injured PW hitting on left elbow and right leg respectively, hence the present petitioners were booked in this case.
3. The post-arrest bail applications filed by the petitioners have been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, Islamabad and learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad as well vide order dated 21.1.2009 and 13.2.2009 respectively.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case which needs further inquiry; that involvement of petitioners in this case is outcome of personal grudge; that nothing incriminating material was recovered from the possession of petitioners during investigation; that the petitioners are previously non-convicts; that from the contents of FIR no offence is made out against the petitioners, so the poitioners are.
Entitled .To the concession of, bail.
5, On the other hand the learned Federal Counsel assisted by learned counsel tar the complainant controverted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and have prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
6. Arguments heard, record perused.
7. From the record it appears that the petitioners are specifically' nominated in the. FIR. Specific role has been attributed to them. They have brutely injured Abdul Rehman PW and the injuries are supported by MLR. The occurrence had taken place in broad-daylight, therefore, identification of petitioners/accused cannot be questioned. As regards the discrepancies in the prosecution case as pointed out by ASP/UT. Islamabad is concerned, it is settled law that deeper appreciation of evidence is not required at the bail stage.
Further suffice it to say that ipse-dixit of the police is not binding upon the Court: At present, sufficient grounds exist to believe the involvement of the petitioner in commission' of offence. From all above, offence attracts the prohibitory clause of section 497: Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the complainant has produced copies of some.FIRs, which reflect that they are previously. Involved in such-like henous offence. Keeping the version of both the parties in juxtaposition, I am of- the firm opinion that it is not a fit case where discretionary relief of bail can he extended in favour of the petitioners.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioners are not entitled to the concession of bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
9. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and shall not affect the case on merits.