ABDUL REHMAN alias BOOTA vs The STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Abdul Rehman alias Boota, in a criminal case registered under Sections 324, 337-H(2), 336, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail based on a subsequent investigation report declaring him innocent and placing him in column No. 2 of the challan, despite having previously withdrawn a bail petition after arguing it at length. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a fresh ground for bail. The Court observed that the supplementary challan was based on material already available when the previous petition was withdrawn. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the opinions of investigating officers do not override the statements of eye-witnesses and injured witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that a bail petition cannot be entertained on grounds that were available but not agitated during the withdrawal of a previous bail application, particularly when prima facie evidence of active participation exists.
- Can a petitioner file a fresh bail application based on grounds that were already available at the time of withdrawing a previous bail petition?
- Does an investigating officer's opinion of innocence automatically entitle an accused to bail when eye-witnesses have implicated the accused?
- Is a trial court required to grant bail if the accused is placed in column No. 2 of the challan?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MISS AALIA NEELUM, J.---The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 301-2014 dated 26.04.2014 registered under Sections 324, 337-H(2), 336, 148, 149, P.P.C., at Police Station, Saddar Sialkot.
2. Arguments heard and the record perused.
3. The record annexed with instant petition reveals that earlier Crl. Misc. No, 9793-B of 2014 was moved by the present petitioner which was dismissed due to non-prosecution on 02.09.2014.
Thereafter Crl. Misc. No,17384-B of 2014 was moved by the petitioner on the same subject which was withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the case at full length on 23.01.2015. Through instant petition, which is third petition on the subject, the petitioner sought same relief on the fresh ground that during the investigation, the petitioner has been found innocent as he was not found present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and the name of the petitioner has been placed in column No,2 of the challan dated 25.01.2015 whereas bail petition was withdrawn from the Court after arguing the case on 23.01,2015. Admittedly second petition was withdrawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the case at full length on 23.01.2015 and the ground agitated in this petition was available to the petitioner at the time of withdrawal of second bail petition.
4. It is an admitted fact that the second investigation was conducted by Khalid Javed, S.I/R.I,B and he opined that the petitioner was innocent and same fact was incorporated in case diary No,33 dated 19.01.2015. However, supplementary challan was prepared on 25.01.2015 and submitted in the court on 06.02.2015. The supplementary challan was submitted on the same material which was collected by the Investigating Officer as on 19.01.2015, no fresh ground was available to the petitioner. If the petitioner had good arguable case, then learned counsel for the petitioner might have not withdrawn the second bail petition.
5. The petitioner is named in the FIR. A specific role has been attributed to him. The injury attributed to the petitioner was duly supported by Medico-legal Certificate. The injuries Nos.3 and 4 were ascribed to the petitioner, which fall under Section 336, P.P.C. The opinions of Investigating Officers have vanished when eye-witnesses as well as injured witness stand by their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner took specific plea of alibi which has not seen light of day during both investigations. In view of statements of eye-witnesses and injured witness, active participation of the petitioner in the occurrence prima facie is made out. The medical report reflects that right ulnar nerve in the forearm was damaged and injuries Nos.3 and 4 were declared falling under Section 336, P.P.C. It was a heinous offence Itlaf-e-Salahiyyat-i-udw for which the petitioner was charged. Already three prosecution witnesses were recorded but they have not been cross-examined by the defence. The trial is likely to conclude shortly.
6. In view of above discussion, the petition having no substance is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- Arbab @ Baloo & another vs The State 2019 KLR Criminal Cases 156