AMIL vs THE STATE and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered against the petitioner, Jamil, for offences including Qatl-e-Amd and attempted murder of police officials. The petitioner sought bail, contending innocence, false implication due to a prior grievance against the police, and that his further detention was unnecessary as the investigation was complete. The State opposed the application, highlighting that the petitioner was directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R., arrested on the spot with a weapon, and that the forensic evidence corroborated the prosecution's case. The Peshawar High Court examined the record, noting that the petitioner was apprehended at the scene with a .30 bore pistol, and the forensic report confirmed a match between the recovered weapon and the crime scene evidence. The Court held that the petitioner was prima facie reasonably connected to the commission of the offence, which falls within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail statute. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, affirming that the accused did not deserve the concession of bail given the strength of the prima facie case.
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, generally disentitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Can bail be granted when the accused is directly charged in a promptly lodged F.I.R. and forensic evidence links the recovered weapon to the crime scene?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' KHALID MEHMOOD, J.---Petitioner Jamil has been arrested by the local police of Police Station Kotnajibullah in case F.I.R. No, 93 dated 13-2-2012 for alleged commission of offence under sections 302/ 324/353/186/13A0/34, P.P.C. He applied for post arrest bail before the courts below but the same was declined. Hence, this bail petition.
2. Briefly stated facts of the prosecution case are that on 13-2-2012 at 1900 hours accused petitioner and others committed Qatl-e-Amd of deceased Khanvez Khan A.S.-I. And also attempted at the lives of complainant and other police officials by firing.
3. Learned counsel- for petitioner argued that accused petitioner is innocent and has been falsely charged in the present case. It was argued that accused petitioner is the son of Sohail deceased, who was murdered by the local police and local police just, to save their skin registered the false case against the accused. It was argued that the investigation in the case is complete and person of petitioner is no more required by the local police. It was also argued that guilt of petitioner requires further inquiry.
4. Counsel for State rebutted the contentions of the petitioner and argued that accused petitioner is directly charged in the F.I.R. For brutal murder of Khanvez Khan A.S.-I. And attempted at the lives of complainant and other police official by indiscriminate firing and offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Accused petitioner is directly charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. For effective firing. Medical report fully supports the prosecution version. Accused resorted to indiscriminate firing, as a result of which Khanvez and Sohail died on the spot. They also attempted to commit Qatl-e-Amd of remaining police officials. Petitioner has been arrested on the spot along with .30 bore pistol. The empties recovered from spot were sent to Arms expert along with the recovered pistol, the report receipt in this behalf is also in positive. Prima facie accused petitioner is found reasonably connected with the commission of an offence, which falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And does not deserve the concession of bail.
7. Consequently, this bail petition stands dismissed.