ZEESHAN MUHAMMAD alias IMRAN vs STATE & another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail petition filed by the petitioner, Zeeshan Muhammad alias Imran, who was charged under Sections 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an alleged murderous assault. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific allegations of firearm use and the subsequent investigation findings. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court observed that the injury caused was to a non-vital part of the body (the left thigh), there was no allegation of repeated firing, and notably, the petitioner was found innocent during the police investigation with no recovery made. While acknowledging that police opinion is not binding on the court, the judge determined that these factors collectively rendered the petitioner's case one of further inquiry under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court granted bail, emphasizing that the observations made were tentative and limited strictly to the disposal of the bail petition.
- Does a finding of innocence by the police during investigation constitute a relevant circumstance for the grant of bail?
- Is a police opinion regarding the innocence of an accused binding on the court during bail proceedings?
- Does an injury to a non-vital part of the body without repetition of fire warrant a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Zeeshan Muhammad alias Imran, petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 158 dated 12.06.2013 offence under Sections 324, 148 and 149, PPC registered at Police Station City Pasrur District Sialkot. Prosecution story, as set out in the FIR, is that the petitioner alongwith his co- accused, while armed with firearm weapons, in prosecution of their common object, entered the house of the complainant and launched a murderous assault on Muhammad Ilyas. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with pistol and fired a shot, which hit on left thigh of Muhammad Ilya injured.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition, contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case; that as per FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with pistol and caused injury on left thigh of Muhammad Ilyas, injured, which is non- vital part of the body; that there is no allegation of repetition of fire against the petitioner; that nothing was recovered from the petitioner and he was found innocent during the course of investigation; that the petitioner is behind the bars since 17.07,2013 and no more required for the purpose of investigation; that in the circumstances, case to the extent of the petitioner calls for further inquiry within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. On the other hand, learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, opposes this bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific allegation of entering the house of the complainant and causing firearm injury on the person of the Muhammad Ilyas, injured; that the medical evidence is exactly in line with the ocular account; that the injured supported the statement of the complainant and police opinion is not binding on the Court; that the offence alleged against the petitioner does fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned DDPP, however, under instructions, states that during the course of investigation, nothing was recovered from the petitioner and he was found innocent.
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. The prosecution case in the FIR is to the effect that the petitioner was armed with pistol and the fire shot by him hit Muhammad Ilyas, injured on his left thigh, which is a non-vital part of the body. There is no allegation of repetition of fire against the petitioner. As confirmed by the learned DDPP, nothing was recovered from the petitioner during the course of, investigation and he was found innocent. The petitioner is behind the bars since 17.7.2013 and no more required for the purpose of investigation. It is true that the police opinion is not binding on the Courts but certainly it is relevant circumstance especially in deciding a petition for bail. In the circumstances, case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- (rupees two lakh only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
5. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and relevant only for the disposal of this bail petition, which, shall not influence the learned trial Court in any manner whatsoever.