Muhammad Ashraf Alias Toga vs The State, Etc.
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner, accused of firing at the deceased, sought bail on the grounds that he was declared innocent during the police investigation, no weapon was recovered from him, and the trial had been significantly delayed despite previous court directions. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry, given the police report of innocence and the lack of incriminating recovery. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the specific injury attributed to the petitioner was not the cause of death according to the post-mortem report. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioner had been incarcerated for nine months without the trial concluding. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where an accused is declared innocent by the police and the specific injury attributed to them is not the cause of death, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does a police report declaring an accused innocent constitute sufficient grounds for bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the specific injury attributed to them is not the cause of death according to the post-mortem report?
- Can bail be granted when the trial has been delayed beyond the time limits previously set by the High Court?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 3, West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance 1960
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J. - Muhammad Ashraf alias Toga, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 481, dated 23.06.2009 registered under Sections 302/109/34, PPC at police station Saddar, Chiniot, District Chiniot (Jhang as mentioned in the FIR). The allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith his co-accused while armed with fire-arms committed murder of Shamman, brother of the complainant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, contends that it was a night time occurrence; that as per F.I.R. The allegation against the petitioner is that he fired with .244 bore rifle and the fire hit on the left foot of the deceased; that during the course of investigation, the petitioner has been found innocent; that no recovery of weapon was effected from the petitioner; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about nine months; that firstly, the petitioner approached this Court for the grant of bail before arrest (Crl. Misc. No. 12861-B of 2009); that first petition for bail after arrest (Crl. Misc. No. 129-B of 2010) was not pressed and as such dismissed on 18.01.2010 with a direction to the learned Trial Court to conclude the trial of this case within a period of three months but the learned Trial Court did not conclude the trial in the said period and thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court for the grant of bail after arrest through Crl.
Misc. No. 2667-B of 2010, which was disposed of on 31.03.2010 with another direction to the learned Trial Court, to conclude-the trial within a period of two months; that the trial has hot been concluded for the main reason that the complainant has instituted a private complaint and now the complainant is in judicial lock-up under Section 3 of the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 (Ordinance XXXI of 1960) and as such is not appealing before the learned Trial Court; that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the ambit of Section 497(2) of Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the complainant opposes this bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R.; that the petitioner has caused injury to the decease which landed on left foot and it is the accused side who is causing delay in the conclusion of the trial; that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail, notwithstanding, the fact that he has been declared innocent by the police; that the petitioner remained fugitive from law for a period of about four months.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General though opposes this bail petition but states that the petitioner was found innocent during the course of investigation. Further confirms that nothing was recovered from the possession or on pointation of the petitioner during the course of investigation.
5. I have heard the arguments of both the sides.
6. As per the allegation against him is that he caused an injury which landed on the left foot of the deceased. As per post-mortem report, the injury No. 1, which is on the thigh of the deceased, is the cause of his death. Moreover, nothing was recovered from the petitioner during the physical remand and he has been declared innocent by the police. The complainant himself has instituted a private complaint and now the proceedings are being conducted in the complaint case. Though as per report of the learned Trial Court, defence is responsible for the delay in the conclusion of the complaint case but the fact remains that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last nine months and he has been declared innocent by the police. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497, CrP. C. This; petition is, therefore, accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000A (rupees one lac) with two sureties in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
7. The complainant is at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of bail if any delay is caused by the petitioner in the conclusion of the trial.