Muhammad Tanvir etc. vs The State etc.
Through the instant petition, the petitioners Muhammad Tanvir and Adnan Sohail sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 381/2014 registered under sections 395, 324, 302, and 412 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13 of Ordinance XX of 1965. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to post-arrest bail where cross-versions existed and the deceased allegedly sustained injuries from firing by the local residents in self-defense. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail, holding that the case required further probe into the petitioners' guilt under sub-section (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that investigation was complete, trial had not commenced, and the petitioners had been incarcerated since 01.09.2014 without conviction in other cases. The key principle laid down is that where cross-versions of an occurrence exist and liability requires deeper appreciation through evidence, further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 brings the accused within the scope of bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when cross-versions of the occurrence are presented by both parties?
- Does the involvement of an accused in other unconvicted cases disentitle them to bail when their case otherwise warrants further inquiry?
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Ordinance XX of 1965
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 412, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through instant petition, petitioners Muhammad Tanvir and Adnan Sohail seek post arrest bail in case FIR No.381/2014 dated 01.09.2014 under sections 395, 324 PPC read with section 13 of Ordinance XX of 1965 and later on added section 302, 412 PPC registered at Police Station Rajana District Toba Tek Singh.
2. Briefly the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the petitioners along with three unknown persons duly armed with firearms entered into the premises where the mobile tower was installed forcibly lifted seven dry batteries from there and when they were escaping from the spot, their car hit electric pole and they came out of the car and started firing and in response thereof people of locality also made firing in self defence due to which one Muhammad Tahir succumbed to the injuries whereas the petitioners and one Zohaib sustained injuries during the scuffle.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. Although both the petitioners are named in the FIR yet according to prosecution's own story deceased sustained injuries by firing made by the people of locality. Surprisingly, according to FIR firing was also made by the petitioners' side but none from the complainant's side receive even a single scratch. It has further been noticed that case FIR No.495/2014 dated 08.12.2014 under sections 302, 148, 149 PPC was registered at Police Station Rajjana on the statement of one Qamar Din real uncle of the deceased Tahir against Mehboob Alam, the complainant of the instant FIR, Muhammad Zahid, Mehmood Ashraf and Muhammad Ashraf in which though accused persons were found innocent by the police but complainant party subsequently was summoned to face the trial in the private complaint titled "Muhammad Din Vs. Mehboob Alam etc." vide order dated 18.02.2015, which version regarding the instant occurrence is correct, as both the parties are facing trial on the basis of different version, would be adjudged by the learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties. The petitioners are behind the bars since 01.09.2014. Investigation qua the petitioners is complete. Challan has been submitted to the learned trial Court where reportedly trial has not commenced so far. Although the petitioners are stated to be involved in few other cases of theft but it has frankly been conceded by learned DDPP that the petitioners are not convicted in any of those cases. No useful purpose would be served to the prosecution by keeping the petitioners behind the bars for an indefinite period.
5. For what has been discussed above, matter against the petitioners requires further probe into their guilt as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. Resultantly instant petition is allowed and the petitioners are admitted to post arrest bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (rupees two lacs only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. The observations made above are tentative in nature and would not effect merits of case of either party.