MUHAMMAD ASIF vs THE STATE and others
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pursuant to F.I.R. No. 135 dated 8-2-2010. The core legal question revolves around whether the accused, who was specifically nominated in the FIR, apprehended at the spot, and alleged to have caused a mortal gunshot injury to the deceased, is entitled to the concession of bail in an offence falling within the prohibitory clause. The court held that the petitioner is directly nominated, was caught at the scene of the crime along with incriminating circumstances, and is prima facie connected to a heinous offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, the court dismissed the bail petition, reaffirming that bail cannot be granted when reasonable grounds exist connecting the accused to a capital charge.
- Whether an accused nominated in the FIR and apprehended at the spot with a firearm is entitled to post-arrest bail for an offence under Section 302, P.P.C.?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. bar the grant of bail in the absence of extraordinary circumstances?
- Can a plea of mistaken identity be accepted when the accused is caught red-handed at the scene of the occurrence?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MAZHAR IQBAL SINDHU, J.-Muhammad Asif petitioner has moved instant application under section 497, Cr.P.C. To seek bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,135 of 2010 dated 8-2-2010 under sections 302/34, P.P.C. On the written complaint of Manzoor Ahmad at Police Station, Jhang Bazar, Distt.
Faisalabad.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the allegations are that on 8-2-2010 at about 8-30 p.m. When the complainant along with the deceased Waseem Ahmad and others was standing outside his house at a crossing, unexpectedly four bikers on two bikes came there and stopped their motorcycles whereupon they were asked about their identities but out of whom one person made a pistol fire shot, thereafter it was apprehended that the said persons were belonging to some gang of dacoits were chased, the deceased took a person in his "Japha" whose name later on lame lighted as Muhammad Asif Lodhi. Petitioner who made pistol fire shot which hit on left flank of the deceased and again he made another fire, the same hit on his left arm. Co-accused Muhammad Khalid alias Khada made a fire shot with his pistol, the same hit on right flank of the deceased and second fire shot hit right foot of Asif Lodhi, then again Khalid alias Khada made another shot, the same landed on the back of the deceased whereas co-accused kept on firing, disappeared from the place of occurrence while petitioner was quelled at the spot along with a motorcycle. The deceased was being taken to the hospital in injured condition but on the way he breathed his last.
3: Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely involved on account of suspicion; he himself received injuries in the occurrence and when he had gone for medical examination in his back, cross-firing took place between the parties in which the deceased received injuries and died of the same. Further maintains that apprehension of the petitioner at the spot is absolutely false and complainant party in connivance with the police has cooked up a false story; since 15-2-2010, petitioner is in durance and material available on the file makes out a case for the grant of bail in favour of the petitioners.
4. Submissions have been opposed by the learned DPP and the learned counsel for the complainant.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Petitioner has been found nominated in the F.I.R. He caused mortal injury to the deceased and not only this but he was also apprehended at the spot. Question of mistaken identity of the petitioner does not arise in this case. The offence with which the petitioner has been charged falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, no case for the grant of bail is made out in favour of the petitioner. Hence, instant petition being shorn of reasons stands dismissed.
Bail rejected.