Imtiaz alias Kaloo vs The State and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Imtiaz alias Kaloo, in a case involving murder and causing injuries. The petitioner was charged under Sections 324, 452, 148, 149, 302, 337-F(v), and 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting investigation reports and the medical evidence regarding the specific injury attributed to him. The Court held that the petitioner's case was distinguishable from his co-accused because police investigation reports indicated that the injury attributed to the petitioner was actually caused by a co-accused who had already been granted bail. Consequently, the Court found that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the law. The key principle laid down is that where investigation reports cast doubt on the specific role attributed to an accused, distinguishing their case from co-accused who were denied bail, a prima facie case for further inquiry is established, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.
- Does a discrepancy in police investigation reports regarding the specific role of an accused create a case for further inquiry justifying bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail on the principle of further inquiry when investigation reports attribute the alleged injury to a co-accused?
- Does the fact that co-accused were denied bail preclude the grant of bail to another accused if their roles are distinguishable?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 332, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J. -- Imtiaz alias Kaloo seeks post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R.
No, 549, dated 5.7.2009 u/Ss. 324/452/148/149, PPC at Police Station, Liaquatpur, District Rahim Yar Khan, on the complaint of Mumtaz Ahmad, against him and his co-accused, 13 in number who have named out in the F.I.R. Whereas 48 as unacquainted, for the alleged murder of Faiz Ahmad and for allegedly causing injuries to Mazhar Abbas, Riaz Ahmad, Mumtaz Ahmad and Maqbool Ahmad with respective weapons. Lateron, during investigation, offences u/Ss. 302/337-F(v)/337- F(vi), PPC were also added to the F.I.R.
2. Precise allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he has held hatchet in his hand at the time of occurrence and caused blow by its reverse side on the nose of Faiz Ahmad deceased.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner for the relief of bail has argued that injury allegedly attributed to the petitioner does not come within the definition clause of 'hurt' as laid down u/S. 332, PPC and as per the Doctor, only swelling on the nose has been mentioned. It has further been argued that during investigation vide case diary No, 26A, dated 28.8.2009 written by Nasir Saqib, SHO, wherein it has been found that in fact said injury attributed to the petitioner was caused by co-accused Muhammad Ajmal, who has been granted bail on the basis of compromise effected between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to make the case of the petitioner of further inquiry on two counts i.e, in the light of medical evidence as well as with reference to police investigation and has prayed for the grant of bail.
4. Learned DPG assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail petition on the grounds that co-accused of the petitioner namely Riaz Ahmad and Muhammad lqbal have been declined relief of bail, who have though not caused injury to the deceased and case of the petitioner stands on similar footings with the case of that co-accused and on the basis of parity of reasons, petitioner does not deserve concession of bail. It has further been argued that in this occurrence, one person lost his life whereas four persons sustained injuries at the hands of petitioner and his co-accused. It has further been argued that offence with which the petitioner has been charged falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. And petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
6. It is not appropriate to go into the niceties of law with reference to the definition of hurt, it may cause prejudice to the either of the party but suffice it to say that in two investigations, it has been transpired that petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased attributed to the petitioner rather it was allegedly caused by his co-accused Muhammad Ajmal. This factor has made the case of the petitioner distinguishable from the case of his co-accused, who have been refused bail by this Court as mentioned above, therefore, prima facie case of further inquiry is made out in favour of the petitioner.
7. Thus, instant application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.