MUHAMMAD TARIQ vs The STATE and another
The petitioner Muhammad Tariq sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 324, 452, 337-F(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sadar Kasur, involving allegations of ineffective firing and causing injuries during an altercation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner made out a case for further inquiry warranting the grant of post-arrest bail given the delayed F.I.R., ineffective firing, police investigation findings, and lack of weapon recovery. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry and admitted him to bail. The key principles laid down are that mere involvement in other criminal cases without conviction does not bar the grant of bail, police opinions during investigation are not strictly binding on the court, and ineffective firing coupled with debatable presence and delayed reporting brings the case within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether ineffective firing and lack of weapon recovery make a case one of further inquiry for the purpose of post-arrest bail?
- Does mere involvement in other criminal cases disentitle an accused from obtaining bail?
- Is a police opinion during investigation binding on the court while deciding a bail application?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Muhammad Tariq petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered against him and others on the written complaint of Iqbal Masih under sections 324, 452, 337-F(ii), 148, 149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sadar Kasur.
2. Teresely the prosecution case is that on 24-11-2012 the petitioner as being rakish along with his co-accused at about "Shamwela" were standing in front of the church and were vexing to the womenfolk and on being forbidden by the complainant abuses were exchanged and after short time, petitioner armed with pistol along with co-accused Razaq armed with .12-bore gun and others came at the spot; his accomplice Razaq made a fire shot at Patras Masih which hit on his right arm, then the petitioner allegedly made a fire shot with his pistol at the complainant Iqbal Masih but he remained unscathed luckily but the fire shot hit the door of the house then Khaliq co- accused caused hatchet blow on the right arm of Younis Masih brother of the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that incident was reported to the police after two days; petitioner and his two real brothers namely Razaq and Khalid have been falsely involved on account of party faction prevailing in the locality; maximum accusation against the petitioner is of ineffective firing; partway investigation he has been found not involved in the case and no weapon of offence has been recovered; in these circumstances, his case squarely falls within the ambit of further inquiry, therefore, he may be granted bail.
4. Learned D.P.G. Assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that he along with his co-accused all being incontinentals as well as spalpeens used to tease the womenfolk particularly of the Christians community in front of the Church, their act by itself is deplorable and then again on being forbidden, they took it very serious and caused injuries to two persons and police opinion is not binding upon the Court; the petitioner is involved in number of cases of alike nature, therefore, he is not entitled for the grant of bail.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. Is conspicuous, reprobative behaviour of the petitioner has not been supported by any woman. Without any evidence he cannot be considered as ruffian; maximum allegation is of ineffective firing. Partway investigation his presence at the spot has not been established. No' weapon of offence has been recovered from him. On prematurely he cannot be held Legorlout and it is not a rule that a spalpeen cannot be allowed bail. Mere involvement in criminal cases except on the eve of conviction, cannot deter the Court to grant bail if the case against the accused prima facie appears to be a matter of further inquiry. The case against the petitioner comes within the mischief of further inquiry on the basis of material available, therefore, he is granted post-arrest bail by accepting the instant application directing him to submit the bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.