MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs THE STATE and another
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Arshad, who was implicated in a criminal case involving firearm injuries. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in light of the nature of the attribution, police investigation findings, lack of fracture, and circumstances of abscondence. The Lahore High Court allowed the bail petition, holding that the petitioner made out a prima facie case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, considering factors such as the absence of a repeated fire shot, absence of a fracture, the police opinion, and the principle that abscondence alone is not a bar to bail when a case for further inquiry is established. The key principle laid down is that police opinions and surrounding mitigating circumstances, including individual criminal responsibility and the nature of injuries, can tilt the balance in favour of granting post-arrest bail under the category of further inquiry.
- Whether abscondence alone disentitles an accused person from the grant of post-arrest bail when a case for further inquiry is otherwise made out?
- Is the police opinion regarding the innocence or specific role of an accused relevant during the consideration of a bail application?
- Does the absence of a fracture resulting from a firearm injury constitute a ground for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
ORDER
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Muhammad Arshad petitioner has sought for the post arrest bail.
2. Tersely the prosecution case is that on 21-10-2011 at about 4.30 p.m. Petitioner along with his co- accused came at the spot by transport means, co-accused Waris raised a lalkara that injured Zulfiqar be caught hold of and be taught a lesson for not giving racketeering thereafter co- accused Mehmood Butt took the injured in his clasp and then Waris co-accused made a fire shot with his pistol hitting on the right leg below the knee joint and second fire shot was made by the petitioner with his kalashnikov which hit on his right thigh, the same went through and through.
Then Faiz Ullah co-accused made a fire shot with his weapon at Taj Muhammad who have recumbent saved himself.
' The motive mentioned in the. F.I.R. Is that the injured refused to pay racketeering to the petitioner party.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a false case has been registered against the petitioner on account of previous enmity and party faction and also because of his relation with the co-accused Waris. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is a school teacher and injury attributed to him is simple in nature; he did not repeat the fire shot and the police after the thorough investigation has opined that petitioner did not cause any fire shot injury to the injured Zulfiqar. Therefore, he may be granted bail. Learned has relied upon PLD 2004 SC 477 and 2008 SCM R 1621.
4.. Learned D.P.-G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. Having been opined as specific injury caused by him, the same has been found corroborated by the medico-legal report and police opinion is not binding upon the Court. Reliance has been placed on 2010 M LD 804.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It is alleged that petitioner was holding a kalanshinkov and made a fire shot hitting on the left thigh of injured Zulfiqar but he did not repeat the fire shot injury. According to the result of the injury no fracture has been found on account of fire shot allegedly made by the petitioner. This fact is also available on the record that petitioner is a school teacher and related to his co-accused Waris who happens to be a proclaimed offender. Police has found the petitioner to be present at the spot but did not cause any injury to the injured. So far as the disappearing of the petitioner after the occurrence is concerned, it is common practice that innocent persons go behind the earth in order to avoid manhandling of the police then at some reasonable time they surrender themselves. Even otherwise, abscondence does not make any bar for the grant of bail provided a case of bail is made out. Further abscondence of the co-accused as well cannot make the Court handicapped to release an accused person on bail for the reasons that every person is responsible for his own acts.
All these facts and circumstances discussed above and while relying upon the legal precedents, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner prima facie a case of further inquiry in favour of the petitioner is made out. Therefore, the instant application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest 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.