MUBEEN NAWAZ vs THE STATE and others
This petition under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner in a murder case registered under Sections 302, 34, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether post-arrest bail should be granted where no specific role or weapon was attributed to the accused in the FIR, and the police had subsequently deleted the non-bailable offense under Section 34 PPC while adding the bailable offense under Section 201 PPC against him. The Lahore High Court held that since no role or weapon was attributed to the petitioner, his case fell within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The Court observed that while police opinions are not binding on courts, they hold persuasive value during bail proceedings. Since no recovery was made and the petitioner was no longer required for investigation, the petition was allowed and post-arrest bail was granted.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C. when no specific role or weapon is attributed to him in the FIR?
- What is the evidentiary value of a police opinion regarding the deletion of a non-bailable section and addition of a bailable section during bail proceedings?
- Does continued incarceration serve a useful purpose for bail considerations when an accused is no longer required for investigation and no recovery was made?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J.--- Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner Mubeen Nawaz has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,782 of 2011 dated 4-8-2011 under sections 302, 34, 201 P.P.C. (section 34, P.P.C. Was deleted and section 201, P.P.C. Was added later on) registered at Police Station B,Division District Sheikhupura.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case mentioned in the F.I.R. Is that Muhammad Shoaib son of the complainant did not return back from the mosque after offering Taravih prayers due to which complainant along with witnesses went to the mosque and saw that an altercation was going on between Muhammad Shoaib son of the complainant and Tariq son of Soofi Akram and the petitioner. Within the view of the complainant Tariq fired from his pump action gun, hitting deceased Shoib who fell down and subsequently, died in the hospital.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that ...According to the F.I.R., petitioner was not even armed with any weapon and no overt act is attributed to the petitioner and only presence of the petitioner is shown at the place of occurrence. Further contends that the police deleted section 34, .P.P.C. And added section 201, P.P.C. To the extent of the petitioner which is bailable.
4. On the other hand, learned DPP assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed this petition by contending that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And he was a party during the scuffle. Further contends that the charge was framed and opinion of the police regarding deletion of section 34, P.P.C. And adding of section 201, P.P.C. Is inadmissible in evidence.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, in the F.I.R. No role is attributed to the petitioner. He was not even shown to be armed with any weapon, due to which case of the petitioner calls for further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The police has also deleted offence under section 34, P.P.C.
And added Section 201, P.P.C. Against the petitioner which is bailable. Although, opinion of the police is not binding on the courts but while dealing with the bail petitions such opinion has some persuasive value. The petitioner was arrested on 13-8-2011 and nothing was recovered from him during investigation. His person is no more required by the police for the purpose of investigation.
His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
7. Consequently, the petition in hand is accepted and the petitioner Mubeen Nawaz is enlarged on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD NASIR and others vs THE STATE and anothers PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 353, 2013 P Cr. L J 95
- MUHAMMAD NASIR vs STATE and another PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 353