MUHAMMAD JAMIL vs THE STATE and others
The accused-petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sakhakot. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and co-accused fired at and injured the victim, who subsequently expired. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner successfully made a case for bail. The ratio decidendi is that contradictions between the medical report and the investigating officer's stance regarding the victim's consciousness, discrepancies concerning the non-recovery of crime empties, a witness's denial under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 of having witnessed the incident, and supporting affidavits regarding alibi collectively render the accused's involvement doubtful and warrant further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions and statements under section 164 Cr.P.C. casting doubt on eyewitness accounts justify the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does a contradiction between a medical report and the investigating officer regarding the victim's consciousness warrant further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Whether the retraction of an eyewitness in a statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 makes the involvement of an accused doubtful for the purpose of bail?
- Does the non-recovery of crime empties from the place of occurrence constitute a ground for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---The accused-petitioner, namely Muhammad Jamil seeks bail in case F.I.R.
No.228 dated 11-12-2011. He is charged under sections 302/324/148/149/114, P.P.C., Police Station Sakhakot.
2. According to report recorded in Emergency Ward of the hospital, the complainant was present in his field along with his brother Arshad, when in the meanwhile a motorcar reached there from which accused Jehanzeb, Aurangzeb, Sultanzeb, Noor Zaman and Jamil along with unknown accused boarded down along with Kalashnikovs and tried to abduct his brother -Arshad. His brother escaped and while he was running, accused Jamil and Jehanzeb fired at him with Kalashnikovs with which he was hit and injured. He was shifted to the hospital. According to F.I.R., the occurrence was also seen by Ammad. Afterwards, the deceased then injured expired.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a delay of about one hour and forty minutes in lodging of F.I.R. He submitted that the accused while injured was conscious and the report should have been made by him. He further submitted that as per medical report, the accused was conscious while according to the Investigating Officer, he was unconscious. He further submitted that no empty was recovered from the spot. The learned counsel added that the eye-witness, namely Ammad has given a statement in which he denied that he has seen the occurrence.
' On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused are directly charged. Effective role has been attributed to them. There are sufficient reasons to connect, the accused/ petitioner with the offence.
4. Record reveals that on .14-2-2012, the statement of Ammad has been recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. By a Judicial Magistrate. According to him, he with the help of other co-villagers, took Arshad, in injured condition to the hospital, who was lying there. He has further stated that he was shown in the F.I.R. As eyewitness but he has seen none of the accused at the time of firing. He has further stated that the deceased was killed by his brother. Statement of Ammad, eyewitness, has made the involvement of accused/petitioner doubtful because he was shown an eyewitness in the first information report which, he has denied. Moreover, this question is also to be inquired as to whether at the time of report the deceased was conscious or not, because if he was conscious then the report should have been lodged by him, so this matter entails further inquiry. There is also contradiction regarding the health of the deceased then injured. The medical report discloses that he was conscious while according to the Investigating Officer, he was not in senses. The other factor for consideration is that the place of occurrence where the deceased was lying injured, no empty has been recovered. Moreover, four persons, namely Murad-ul-Islam, Hidayatullah, Badshah Khan and Shafiullah etc. Have filed affidavits according to which the accused were present at the time of occurrence in the Masjid. This has also made a case of further inquiry.
' The result of my above discussion is that petitioner has successfully made a case for bail. So, this application for bail is allowed and accused/petitioner is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lacs) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.