MUHAMMAD NASIR vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Saraiy Sidhu, District Khanewal, involving charges of murder and rioting. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to be armed and engaged in aerial firing without causing any specific injury to the deceased or prosecution witnesses, was entitled to post-arrest bail based on lack of motive, absence of an overt act, non-recovery of the weapon, and the statutory delay in the conclusion of the trial. The court held that since the petitioner was not connected to the motive, was not alleged to have fired at the deceased or injured witnesses, and no weapon was recovered from him, his case warranted further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, laying down that involvement restricted to aerial firing without corresponding firearm injuries attributed to the accused, coupled with lack of motive and prolonged incarceration, establishes a case for further inquiry.
- Whether an accused person alleged only to have committed aerial firing without hitting the deceased or injured witnesses is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of motive and non-recovery of a weapon during investigation make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can prolonged incarceration without the conclusion of the trial serve as a ground for granting bail in a murder case?
- 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 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Nasir, the petitioner seeks post arrest bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No, 293 of 2009 dated 01.08.2009, offence under Sections 302/109/148/149 of PPC registered at Police Station Saraiy Sidhu, District Khanewal.
2. According to FIR Fida Hussain and Mureed Hussain co-accused of the petitioner committed the murder of Manzoor Hussain, brother of the complainant whereas Munir Hussain and Jaafar alias Kali, co-accused inflicted injuries on the person of Muhammad Nasir PW. The allegation against the petitioner Muhammad Nasir is that he was armed with pistol .30-bore and resorted to ariel firing.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that motive of the occurrence is not attributed to the petitioner. Although the petitioner was allegedly armed with pistol .30-bore but there is no allegation that he fired at the deceased or the injured PW; that no overt is attributed to the petitioner; that recovery of pistol .30-bore was not effected from the petitioner during investigation; that petitioner was arrested on 20.08.2009 and he is behind the bar for more than one year without conclusion of the trial, so, he has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant learned DPG have opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the grounds that petitioner is nominated in promptly lodged FIR; that he was armed with pistol .30- bore and resorted to arial firing, so, he is vicariously liable for the murder of Manzoor Hussain, deceased; that the trial of the case is under progress, so, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
6. The petitioner is not connected with motive part of prosecution story rather motive is attributed to co-accused Fida Hussain alias Khizar. Although the petitioner was allegedly armed with pistol .30-bore but there is no allegation against him that he fired either on the deceased or on the PW.
The only allegation against the petitioner is that he resorted to ariel firing. During investigation pistol .30-bore was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of interim orders of learned trial Court. The perusal of interim order reveals that the complainant has submitted an application before the learned trial Court for summoning of co-accused Allah Yar who was declared innocent by the police and learned trial Court summoned him to face the trial vide his order dated 02.09.2010.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.