ZULQARNAIN vs STATE etc.
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Zulqarnain, who was implicated in a murder case registered under FIR No. 158/2015. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the specific allegations and the evidentiary record. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of his pre-arrest bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the medical evidence failed to corroborate the ocular account regarding the specific act attributed to the petitioner (throwing red chilies), and the police investigation indicated his absence from the crime scene. Furthermore, the Court noted the possibility of false implication due to family enmity and the fact that the petitioner had already joined the investigation. The key principle laid down is that bail may be granted in offences falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused and where the investigation suggests the accused did not commit the non-bailable offence.
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted when medical evidence fails to corroborate the ocular account of the prosecution?
- Is bail permissible in offences falling under the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if there are grounds for further inquiry into the accused's guilt?
- Does the absence of the accused from the crime scene, as determined by police investigation, constitute a valid ground for granting pre-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Zulqarnain, petitioner seeks his bail before arrest in case FIR No. 158/2015 dated 29.03.2015, offence under Section 302/109/148/149, PPC, registered at Police Station Peoples Colony, Gujranwala.
2. The only allegation in the FIR against the petitioner is that he threw red chilies in the eyes of the deceased Shahid.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. As per FIR, five accused were nominated and two were unknown. Out of the nominated accused persons, two are real brothers of the petitioner Zulqarnain. The other two nominated co-accused were discharged by the police as they were implicated u/S. 109, PPC. Prima-facie the post-mortem report is silent regarding red chilies being thrown in the eyes of the deceased, hence, the medical evidence is not corroborating the ocular account. No red chilies were recovered from the spot to strengthen the prosecution case. The possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out, as there is a general trend in our society to involve maximum people of a Family in criminal cases and throw the not as wide as possible. Admittedly both the parties are daggers drawn and it cannot be ruled out that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Reliance is placed upon "Muhammad Boota v. The State and others." 2014 SCM R 1355. The deceased has received only one fire-arm injury, which is attributed to Zia Ullah accused, who is real brother of the petitioner. The petitioner has joined the investigation. According to the police investigation, he was not present at the spot. It is yet to be ascertained whether the petitioner participated in the occurrence in any manner, which will be seen at the trial stage. It has been held by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan that bail can be allowed in offences falling under the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., where there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused and the Investigating Officer or the Court have come to the conclusion that the accused had not committed the non-bailable offence. Reliance is placed upon Arbab A.I v. Khamiso and others, 1985 SCM R 195, Amir A.I and others v. The State, 1984 SCM R 521, Dr. Muhammad Aslam v. The State, 1993 SCM R 2288. The petitioner is a non-convict. He is no more required by the police for investigation.
Nothing has to be recovered from him, therefore, it will serve no purpose to send the petitioner behind the bars, as this will be an un-necessary burden upon the exchequer/State.
5. In view of the above, this instant petition is allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are strictly confined to the decision of this bail petition only.