MUHAMMAD KHALID vs STATE and anothers
This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 133 registered under Sections 302, 324, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Karampur, District Vehari. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific role and firearm injuries attributed to him during the incident where two persons lost their lives and another was injured. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR with a specific role of causing a firearm injury to the injured witness, the offense falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage. The court laid down the principle that tentative assessment of the record is applied at the bail stage, and matters requiring evaluation of evidence like the seat of injury must be determined by the trial court after recording evidence.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the accused is specifically nominated in the FIR for causing firearm injuries in a double murder case?
- Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail under tentative assessment?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permissible at the bail stage regarding the seat of injuries?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
'Muhammad Khalid, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 133 dated 24.03.2015 offence under Sections 302. 324, 109, 148 and 149, PPC (Section 7 of the ATA was deleted later on) registration at Police Station Karampur District Vehari.
2. Precisely the prosecution story as set out in the FIR is that the petitioner alongwith his co- accused while armed with fire-arms committed murder of Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Ejaz and caused injuries to Talib Hussain, injured.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it has been observed as follows:-
(a) The petitioner is nominated in the FIR with specific role that he was armed with fire-arm and fired at Talib Hussain injured which landed on his belly and went through and through.
(b) In this case, two persons namely Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Ejaz lost their lives and Talib Hussain sustained fire-arm injuries which have been attributed to the petitioner only.
(c) Learned DDPP under instructions and after perusal of record has confirmed that the petitioner has been found hilly involved during the course of investigation.
(d) The offence alleged against the petitioner does fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(e) So far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner qua seat of injuries on the person of Talib Hussain injured is concerned, the same shall be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence of the parties. Moreover, it is a question of deeper appreciation of evidence, which is not permissible at bail stage.
(f) Charge has been framed in this case and as pointed out by learned counsel for the parties, the case is fixed for evidence on 13.04.2016.
4. For what has been observed above, no ground for post arrest bail is made out in favor of the petitioner. Therefore, this petition stands dismissed.
5. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are purely tentative in nature and relevant only for the disposal of this bail petition, which shall not influence the learned trial Court in any manner whatsoever.