Muhammad Arshad vs The State and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 560/2015 registered under sections 302, 396, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail when the prosecution's case presents conflicting versions regarding his presence and role at the crime scene. The Court noted that while the petitioner was named in the FIR, subsequent investigation revealed that prosecution witnesses did not implicate him, and the investigation concluded he was not present at the scene, creating a conflict between the complainant's version and the investigation's findings. Relying on the principle that such contradictions render a case one of further inquiry, the Court held that the petitioner's continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose, especially given he is a first-time offender and the investigation is complete. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the case falls under the scope of further inquiry as contemplated by the statutory provisions governing bail, subject to the petitioner furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident, one from the complainant and one from the investigation, entitle an accused to bail on the grounds of further inquiry?
- Can bail be granted when the investigation concludes the accused was not present at the scene of the crime despite being named in the FIR?
- Is a first-time offender entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 396, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 397, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through this petition under section 497 Cr.P.C. Muhammad Arshad petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No.560/2015 dated 01.1 1.2015 under sections 302, 396, 397 PPC, registered at Police Station Taxila, District Rawalpindi.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. This is bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. It has been noticed by this Court that although the petitioner is named in FIR yet the fact remains that no specific role has been attributed to him therein. The only role attributed to the petitioner , as per FIR, is that he was armed with pistol .30 bore at the time of occurrence and he alongwith his eight co-accused made indiscriminate firing as a result of which his two co-accused lost their lives at the spot, but it is an admitted fact that Nasrullah, Sher Rehman and Dilawar Khan PWs in their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. did not point accusing fingers towards the petitioner , whereas the alleged injured namely Jamal Shah neither got himself medically examined nor joined investigation of the case as no statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of this witness is available on the record. It has also come on record during the course of investigation that the petitioner was not even present at the spot at the time of occurrence, so keeping in view the contents of FIR and the outcome of investigation, prima facie the case of the prosecution against the petitioner has become a case of two versions i.e. one put forward by the complainant and the other came on record during investigation and which version is correct shall be determined by learned trial court after recording evidence. Reliance can easily be placed upon 2012 SCMR 1137 (Ehsan Ullah vs. The State) wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as under:- "This shows that in the present case the prosecution itself has two versions vis--vis the petitioner , first of the complainant party according to which the petitioner was present at the spot and had resorted to firing and second of the investigating agency according to which the petitioner was not present at the spot and he was abetting his co-accused form behind the scene. All these considerations surely render the case against the petitioner one of further inquiry into his guilt."
Admittedly the petitioner is previous non-co nvict. He is behind the bars since 20.11.2015 without any fruitful progress in conclusion of his trial. Investigation of the case is complete and the petitioner is no more required for further investigation.
His further incarceration in jail would not serve any useful purpose.
3. For what has been discussed above, the case of the petitioner becomes one of further inquiry covered by sub- section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C. This petitio n is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is granted bail after arrest subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.100, 000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
4. The observations made above are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.