SAFARASH ALI vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Safarash Ali, in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 452, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from FIR No. 27/2009. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of the incident presented by the complainant and the mother of the deceased. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR for the murders of two individuals. Conversely, the defense argued that the petitioner was falsely implicated, highlighting that the mother of the deceased had lodged a separate FIR and a private complaint naming different accused persons and providing a contradictory account of the occurrence. The Court held that the existence of two diametrically opposed versions of the incident from the parents of the deceased rendered the petitioner's case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioner post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that conflicting versions of an incident from closely related witnesses can create sufficient doubt to warrant bail pending trial.
- Does the existence of two contradictory versions of an incident from close relatives of the deceased constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the complainant and another key witness provide mutually exclusive accounts of the crime?
- Can a petitioner be granted bail if the prosecution's case is challenged by a separate FIR and private complaint naming different perpetrators?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR 27 dated 5.02.2009, under Sections 302/452/109/34 PPC Police Station Kameer, District Sahiwal.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his co-accused opened fire on the belly of complainant's son and also on the chest of Mst. Shakeela Bibi and both the injured succumbed to the injuries; hence, this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner has been involved on fabricated story.
Actually, complainant party took forcibly Mst. Shakeela Bibi and tried to confine her who tried to come out from the room and Yahya son of the complainant tried to caught hold her and in the meantime his companions inflicted fire upon Mst. Shakeela as well as Muhammad Yahya, ultimately both died and complainant in league with police got registered above said case but subsequently Mst. Shehnaz Bibi also got lodged a case FIR No, 47/09 under Section 302/34 PPC with the same Police Station. Mst. Shehnaz also filed a complaint under Sections 302/364/34 PPC.
Moreover, the petitioner did not involve in the murder of complainant's son; hence, he is entitled, for the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this petition and argued that petitioner is nominated in FIR. Specific role has been attributed to him. Challan has been submitted before the Court; therefore, he is not entitled for the concession of bail.
5. Heard. Record, perused.
6. Although this case has been registered on the complaint of father of the deceased in which Safarash Ali and one Riaz co-accused attributed specific injuries to Yahya and Mst. Shakeela which as per post-mortem report caused death, to both the deceased. On the other hand, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi real mother of deceased lodged another FIR No, 47/2009 in which petitioner is neither the accused nor any role has been attributed to him rather four other persons are nominated as accused and injuries are attributed to Ahmad Ali, Yahya, Zulfiqar and Abdul Ghaffar accused. As per this FIR father of deceased was not present at the place of occurrence and he was in his way to Okara and later on Mst. Shahnaz filed a private complaint on similar allegations in which accused are summoned and they will face the trial. Considering that father and mother have two different versions and both are closely related to the deceased, on this sole ground case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry. Therefore, he is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
However, if the petitioner would try to hamper with the evidence or create hurdle in conclusion of trial or absents himself from the proceedings, the trial Court will be at liberty to proceed against him strictly in accordance with law.