SADAM vs STATE and another
This criminal miscellaneous petition was filed by the petitioner, Sadam, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the murder of one Javed. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the existence of a cross-version and the specific allegations of murder attributed to him. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the FIR with a direct, fatal role in the commission of the offence, which was corroborated by statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and supported by medical evidence. The Court further noted that the petitioner failed to establish false implication or substitution. The key principle laid down is that where a specific role of causing a fatal injury is attributed to an accused and supported by sufficient incriminating material, including medical evidence and witness statements, the existence of a cross-version does not automatically entitle the accused to bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail where a specific role of causing a fatal injury is attributed to him and supported by medical evidence?
- Does the existence of a cross-version automatically entitle an accused to the concession of bail in a murder case?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution has collected sufficient incriminating material against the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
By filing instant criminal miscellaneous petition Sadam petitioner seeks his release on bail in case FIR No, 03, dated 01.01.2012, registered under Sections 302 & 34, PPC with Police Station Satiana, Tehsil JaranwaIa, District Faisalabad.
2. On 01.01.2012 Nazar Muhammad reported that Sadam while arm with Repeater .12 bore fired at his son Javed from the roof of his house which hit at the neck of Javed. Co-accused Waryam also fired at Javed which hit on his left lumber-region and third fire of Suba landed at the abdomen of Javed, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that regarding the same occurrence a cross- version has been lodged against the complainant party for launching criminal assault on Suba etc. in which he received injuries at his arm and the Police has challaned three persons from the complainant side, therefore, the case in hand is of two versions, the benefit of which is to be given to the petitioner. He further submitted that the motive narrated in the FIR is not supported from the document as the sister of Suba was abducted 4/5 years prior to the occurrence during which time no action was taken against the delinquents, therefore, this allegation of abduction has no substance.
4. The petition has been opposed by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, submitting that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the FIR with specific role of murdering son of the complainant. Added further that the crime weapon was also recovered at the instance of the petitioner and crime empties were collected from the spot, thus there is sufficient incriminating material on record, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for bail.
5. Parties heard and record perused.
6. As per allegation contained in the FIR Sadam petitioner while armed with Repeater .12 bore fired at Javed hitting at his neck, which fire proved fatal as per post-mortem report available on the record. The petitioner remained unable to establish on the record his substitution or false implication in the case rather the allegation levelled against him are duly supported by the statements of the PWs recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Those witnesses appeared before the Investigating Agency and fully corroborated the fact that Javed lost his life with the fire of the petitioner. Medical evidence on file also supports the version of prosecution. Since the specific role of murdering Javed has been levelled against the petitioner with sufficient incriminating evidence available on the record, therefore, the petition& is not entitled for the concession of bail.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition having no merits is dismissed.