MUHAMMAD RAMZAN alias KHAN vs The STATE and anothers
This criminal petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary issue was whether the accused was entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 where the prosecution attributed only an empty-handed role involving raising a 'lalkara' and holding the deceased, and where a cross-version with unexplained injuries on the accused side existed. The High Court allowed the bail petition, holding that allegations of 'lalkara' and restraint often reflect wide-net casting in society and demand cautious scrutiny. Given the unexplained injuries to the accused party, an ongoing investigation into a cross-version, and the fact that trial evidence had not yet been recorded, the question of which party acted as the aggressor made the case one of further inquiry. Additionally, the mere framing of charges does not preclude the grant of bail when a case on merits is established.
- Does an empty-handed role involving a 'lalkara' and holding the deceased warrant cautious scrutiny when considering post-arrest bail?
- Whether the existence of a cross-version and unexplained injuries on the accused party makes a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the grant of bail on merits be withheld solely on the ground that the trial court has already framed charges against the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,159 of 2012 dated 12- 6-2012 Police Station Chab Kalan District Khanewal under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution version as embodied in the F.I.R. Recorded on the application of Ahmad Yar complainant is that at about 7-00 p.m. On 11-6-2012 the petitioner, while empty handed along with his co-accused persons, who were armed with sotas, hatchets and firearms made an attack on Nawab etc. Allegedly the petitioner raised lalkara' and held Nawab in his arms and thereafter his co-accused Hussain Bakhsh gave hatchet blow on his head and Mumtaz gave sota blow on his foot, whereas his co-accused gave a blow with wrong side of the hatchet on the head of Riaz P.W.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner, according to the prosecution version, was empty handed and has not caused any injury to the deceased or injured P.W.; that in fact the complainant party had made aggression and caused injuries to Hashim, Saleem and Mumtaz etc., which have not been disclosed in the F.I.R.; that the cross version has been put forth and the matter is still under investigation; that the above-mentioned injured persons were also examined on the date of occurrence so the possibility of self-infliction stands ruled out and that it is a case of two versions so needs further probe and inquiry. In support of the contentions reliance is placed on "Ali Sheharyar v. The State" (2008 SCM R 1448).
4. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the petition. It was contended that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R.; that he facilitated his co-accused in accomplishment of their designs by holding the deceased in his arms; that the charge has been framed and the case is fixed for evidence and that under section 149, P.P.C. He is responsible for all the offences, committed during occurrence. In support of the contentions reliance is placed on "Shoukar Ilahi v.
Javed Iqbal and others" 2010 SCM R 966, "Muhammad Ibrahim alias Bawa v. The State" (2007 M LD 1056 Lahore) and "Gul Bahar and another v. The State" (2002 PCr.LJ 1277 Karachi).
5. There is a delay of about six hours in lodging the F.I.R. The petitioner was admittedly empty handed. The allegations of raising lalkara' and holding someone in the arms are usually leveled in our society by throwing a wider net so such accusation should always be scrutinized with care and caution. A cross version has already been put forth and same is under investigation. Three accused persons nominated in the F.I.R. Were also injured during the occurrence and they were A medically examined on the same day. Their injuries are not mentioned by the complainant. It is a case of two versions and it would be determined only after recording the evidence and appraisal thereof as to who had in fact launched the aggression. From this angle, it is a case of further inquiry within the meanings of section 497(2), Cr.P.C. The person of the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. The case-law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the complainant is not applicable on the facts of the present petition. No doubt the charge has been framed but statement of even a single witness has not been recorded so far. It is an established law that if the case for grant of bail is made out on merits the same cannot be withheld merely due to framing of the charge.
6. For the reasons supra the petition is accepted and petitioner is ID admitted to post arrest bail in the sum of Rs,250,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.