MUHAMMAD SARDAR vs The STATE and otherss
This matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Sardar in relation to FIR No. 541 dated 10-12-2012 registered under sections 302, 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar Shahkot, District Nankana Sahib, concerning the murder of his daughter-in-law, Nida Bibi. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the allegations, specific role attributed, and supporting medical and forensic evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner was directly named in the FIR with a specific role of causing fatal firearm injuries, which was corroborated by the post-mortem report, recovery of blood-stained earth, empties, and statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that the mere filing of a private complaint does not constitute a ground for further inquiry or bail when a specific, fatal role is consistently attributed to the accused supported by corroborative evidence.
- Whether an accused named in the FIR with a specific role for causing fatal injuries is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the filing of a private complaint by the complainant automatically make the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Whether recovery of empties and blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence corroborates the ocular account to disallow bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MISS AALIA NEELUM, J.---Petitioner, Muhammad Sardar seeks his post arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,541, dated 10-12-2012, registered under sections 302, 109, 34, P.P.C., at Police Station, Sadar Shahkot, District, Nankana Sahib.
2. Allegation levelled against petitioner in F.I.R., is that he caused fire arm injuries on the person of Nidda Bibi, who succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is unexplained delay of 5-1/2 hours in lodging of F.I.R.; further adds that complainant by filing private complaint has changed his stance which makes the case of prosecution doubtful; further submits that prosecution has failed to bring on record sufficient evidence to connect the petitioner with alleged occurrence; also adds that nothing was recovered from the possession of petitioner during investigation, therefore, petitioner is entitled to the relief as claimed for.
4. Conversely, learned Law officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition in hand by arguing that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., with specific role; further adds that offence committed by the petitioner is of heinous nature; further submits that statements of P.Ws. Support the stance of complainant; also adds that petitioner was found guilty during investigation, hence, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Allegation against petitioner-accused is that he murdered his daughter-in-law in his house, blood-stained earth was recovered from the place of occurrence, as is manifest that the petitioner named with specific role for causing fatal injuries to deceased, Nida Bibi. The witnesses in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C., have supported the version of complainant. The postmortem report shows that deceased received four injuries including entry and exit wounds and all of them were on vital part of the body of deceased, Nida Bibi whereas injuries Nos.! And 2 were cause of death. From the place of occurrence, four empties were recovered which corroborates the version of complainant and witnesses.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken plea that the complainant has filed private complaint by improving his stance which makes the case of petitioner that of further inquiry, has no substance as specific role is assigned for causing death and mere filing of private complaint could not be a ground for concession of bail, as same role is attributed in private complaint to the petitioner.
8. For the above reasons, petition is without merits and same is dismissed.