RASHID ALI vs The STATE and anothers
This petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail in a murder case registered under sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when, despite being named in the FIR, subsequent police investigations consistently found him empty-handed at the scene and no specific injury was attributed to him. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision is that where an FIR contains only generalized and collective allegations of firing against multiple accused, and independent police investigations conclude that the accused did not cause any injury and was present without a weapon, the case against the accused falls within the ambit of further inquiry. The Court established the principle that such findings, coupled with evidence of previous enmity between the parties, create sufficient doubt regarding the accused's culpability to warrant the grant of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the FIR contains only generalized allegations of firing without attributing a specific injury?
- Does a police investigation report finding an accused empty-handed at the scene justify a grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted in a murder case where there is a history of enmity between the complainant and the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Rashid Ali petitioner has sought for post arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,66 dated 29-1-2012 under sections 302, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. At Police Station Dajkot, Distt.
Faisalabad on the written complaint of Abdul Ghaffur.
2. Briefly, woeful story of the prosecution case is that on 29-1-2012 at about 1-00' p.m, the complainant Abdul Ghaffur along with his son Mojahid Ali, Shakeel Ahmad and Rasheed Ahmad were proceeding towards village Abadi from his agricultural land, when reached at Adda Chak Dajkot Penserra Road, where accused persons namely Rashid Ali, the petitioner and his particeps criminis Khalid, Asmat, Sajid, Janashaid, Azmat, Ghulam Ali, Arshad and Sabir Mochi who had already crouched, came in front of the complainant party along with firearm weapons, started to raise Lalkaras that Mojahid shall be taught a lesson for causing injuries to Sajid and others, then accomplices Sajid, Khalid and Asmat raised a Lalkara that Mojahid be not permitted to go alive whereupon the petitioner Rashid Ali and co-accused Jamshaid made firing with their respective firearm weapons at Mojahid Ali who fell down dead by receiving injuries. The alleged incident took place on account of criminal machination of particeps Talib Qureshi.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that before the instant occurrence, petitioner had got a case registered vide F.I.R. No,131 dated 8-3-2009 under sections 324, 337F(i)(iii)(v), 148, 149, P.P.C. Against the deceased, complainant and others for causing injuries to him, Ghulam Ali, Sajid Ali and Sabir Ali; on account of previous enmity, petitioner has been involved for malevolence; no specific injury has been attributed to him; during investigation, carried out by the local police, petitioner was found empty handed at the place of occurrence vide case diary No,36 dated 26-4- 2012 recorded by Farzand Ali S.-L/I.O., then investigation was carried out by Regional Investigation Branch, Faisalabad and on the conclusion of investigation vide case Diary No,57 dated 2-10-2012 recorded by Muhammad Arshad Inspector, petitioner again has been found empty handed at the place of occurrence; no crime weapon has been recovered from him; since 26-3-2012, he is behind the bars. In these circumstances, petitioner is entitled tor grant of bail. Learned counsel has also relied on case titled Ehsan Ullah v. The State (2012 SCM R 1137) to strengthen his arguments.
4. Learned D.P.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for complainant has opposed submissions exquisitely by submitting that incident took place on 29-1-201.2 at about 1-00 p.m., crime was reported at 2-00 p.m. By giving its complete details in the F.I.R. And the post mortem examination of the deceased Mojahid Ali was performed on the same day at 2-30 p.m., in this way, no time was gained by the complainant party to mull over the occurrence for fabrication. Further submits that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R., parties were known to each other before occurrence; specific fire shots injuries are attributed to him; the deceased received five firearm wounds on his body and number of injuries prima facie proves involvement of the petitioner and his co-accused Jamshaid.
Further submits that so far as police opinion in favour of petitioner is concerned, the same being inadmissible is neither relevant nor binding upon the court and on account of previous enmity, petitioner has committed murder of the deceased; the charge indicted against the petitioner necessarily falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And has thus prayed for dismissal of instant petition.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Straightaway it has been noticed that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. Lodged promptly but no specific or particular injury on the person of the deceased has been attributed to him. Only generalized and collective allegation of causing fire shot injuries has been levelled against him and his co-accused Jamshaid. During successive investigation, it has been transpired that petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased and he was present at the spot without any weapon.
Enmity, between the parties existed before instant incident as evident from arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. In these circumstances, involvement of the petitioner on account of aforethought malice of the complainant party cannot be ruled out. Thus, by relying upon Ehsan v.
The State 2012 SCM R 1137, case of the petitioner prima-facie falls within the ambit of further inquiry, therefore, instant petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail provided his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.