MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs STATE & another
This petition concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Saleem, who was nominated in an FIR registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(v), 337-L(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was alleged to have been armed with a .30 bore pistol but was accused only of causing injuries to the complainant with the butt of the weapon, rather than firing it. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite having remained a fugitive from law for over four years and being nominated in a case involving serious offences. The Court held that since the petitioner did not use the firearm and the injuries attributed to him were minor, his case required further inquiry, particularly as the prosecution failed to explain injuries sustained by the accused side. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the determination of common intention to kill is a matter for trial, and continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose given the circumstances.
- Does remaining a fugitive from law for a significant period automatically disentitle an accused to the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail when the prosecution fails to explain injuries sustained by the accused side in the same occurrence?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the specific role attributed involves non-lethal use of a weapon despite being charged with murder?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition Muhammad Saleem, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 647 dated 8.10.2008 registered under Sections 302/324/337-A(i)/337-A(ii)/337-F(v)/337-L(ii)/34 PPC at Police Station Sadar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. The FIR was registered on the statement of one Muhammad Ashraf in respect of an occurrence which took place on 4.10.2008 at 10.30 a.m. in which he received certain blunt weapon injuries. The matter was reported to the police on 8.10.2010 at 4.00 p.m. In the FIR four persons were nominated including the present petitioner. Petitioner was statedly armed with .30 bore pistol whereas his co- accused were armed with hatchets and one Siddique was armed with sota father of co-accused Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Latif. The role attributed to the present petitioner is that of causing injury to complainant Muhammad Ashraf with the butt of .30 bore pistol near his right and left eyes who was medically examined on the same day and the doctor observed injury to be falling under Section 337-A(i) PPC. The petitioner remained fugitive from law for more than four years and after his arrest on 16,10.2012 during investigation he got recovered .30 bore pistol. Initially cross version was recorded by the accused side as three persons from their side also received injuries at the hands of complainant side, later on, same was found false. Subsequently they filed private complaint which too was dismissed and now special leave to appeal is pending before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is behind the bars for the last five months and is no more required for further investigation. It is stated that petitioner was statedly armed With .30 bore pistol but he never used the same and only role assigned to him was that of causing injury to the injured complainant with the butt of his pistol. It is stated that in the circumstances involvement of the petitioner in the offence under Section 302 or 324 PPC is not made out. He being armed with .30 bore pistol although present at the spot but he never used the same and such circumstance goes in his favour. Further states that injury attributed to the petitioner is falling under Section 337-A(i) PPC which is a bailable offence; that petitioner remained P.O. for mop than four years but such circumstance does not dis-entitle him to the grant of post arrest bail. In this respect reliance has been placed on Muhammad Akhtar Vs. The State and another (2012 YLR 2025), Muhammad Ilyas Vs. The State and another (2012 M LD 412) and. Suleman Vs. The State (2012 M LD 574). Prayer for the grant of post arrest bail has been made.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant states that petitioner is duly nominated in the FIR, he came at the spot along with his other co-accused duly armed with .30 bore pistol having common intention to kill; that although he did not fire the same but rather gave butt blows with his pistol to the injured complainant. The I.O. found him involved in the occurrence, therefore, in the circumstances, he is not entitled to the grant of post arrest bail.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly the petitioner was nominated in the FIR. The role assigned to the petitioner is that of causing injury to the complainant whereas there is no allegation for causing any injury to the deceased. Even otherwise he was armed with .30 bore pistol at the spot but he never used the same such circumstance goes in his favour. The matter regarding, intention to kill is to be determined after recording of evidence at the trial. No doubt he remained fugitive from law for a considerable period i,e, more than four years but he is behind the bars for the last five months and the trial has not commenced. At this stage keeping the petitioner behind the bars would serve no useful purpose. The learned Law Officer has informed that cross-version was later on found to be correct by the Regional Intelligence Bureau, Sahiwal as three persons from petitioner's side received injuries at the hands of complainant's side which were not explained in the FIR. So, in the circumstances the case of the petitioner needs further probe. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 6,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner has been burdened with heavy bail bonds as he remained fugitive from law for a. long time.