SAJID MEHMOOD and 2 others vs STATE and another
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from a private complaint filed ten months after the initial FIR, involving allegations under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were not nominated in the original FIR, and while the complainant alleged that Petitioner Sajid Mehmood raised a 'Lalkara' and the other petitioners conspired in the murder, the police investigation had previously found them innocent. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the divergence between the prosecution's case and the private complaint, and the fact that the police had previously exonerated them. The Court held that the discrepancy between the FIR and the private complaint, coupled with the police's prior finding of innocence, rendered the petitioners' case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court confirmed the ad-interim pre-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where there is a significant divergence between the initial FIR and a subsequent private complaint, and the accused were previously found innocent by the police, the case warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of pre-arrest bail.
- Does the non-nomination of an accused in the initial FIR, followed by their inclusion in a private complaint filed after a significant delay, constitute grounds for further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail if the police investigation previously found them innocent despite subsequent summons by a trial court?
- What is the legal distinction between 'sufficient grounds to proceed' and 'grounds for further inquiry' in the context of bail applications?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner Sajid Mehmood, Muzammal Hussain Shah and Ali Raza through the instant petition seek pre-arrest bail in private complaint dated 9.6.2010 lodged under Sections 302, 109, 148 & 149 PPC with Police Station Saddar Mian Channu, Khanewal.
2. The allegation against petitioner Sajid Mehmood is that he alongwith Shahid Saleem co- accused launched an attack on Muhammad Saeed brother of the complainant, as a result of which he lost his life at the hands of Shahid Saleem, whereas the allegation against rest of the accused is that the deceased was killed by Shahid Saleem and Sajid Mehmood on their abetment.
Hence this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not nominated in the FIR; however, after the lapse of about ten months, a complaint was filed in which Petitioner No, 1 namely Sajid Mehmood is alleged to have raised Lalkara and Petitioners No, 2 and 3 namely Muzammal Hussain and Ali Raza respectively are shown to have hatched conspiracy.
4. On the other hand, learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that although the petitioners were not nominated in the FIR but through some reliable sources the complainant informed the police and their names stand figured in case diaries but even then, the police have found them innocent.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It is correct that the case diary dated 15.9.2009 contains the names of the petitioners but per se non-mentioning of their names in the FIR and then subsequently after thorough deliberation, filing private complaint and only attributing Lalkara to Sajid Mehmood petitioner and conspiracy to Muzammal Hussain and Ali Raza petitioners vividly show the divergence of the complainant and prosecution, which makes the case of present petitioners that of further inquiry and probe into their guilt. Although the petitioners have been summoned by the learned trial Court but as far as grounds for further inquiry are concerned, if are compared to sufficient grounds to proceed, though the same are relative terms but there is quite difference between these two phrases. The learned trial Court has only summoned the petitioners after having recorded the cursory evidence and finding sufficient grounds to proceed but as the petitioners were found not involved in State case, therefore, their case still remains that of further inquiry.
7. Hence, the petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.11.2010, is hereby confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 200,000/- (Rupees two lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.