HANZLA AHSAN vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Hanzla Ahsan, who was accused of murder alongside several co-accused. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, armed with a chhura, participated in the attack on the deceased, Nasir Mehmood. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the lack of specific injury attribution and the findings of the police investigation. The Court observed that the injuries attributed to the petitioner were not descriptive of specific locales on the victim's body. Furthermore, the report prepared under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 indicated that the petitioner was found empty-handed during the investigation. The Court held that police opinion regarding the petitioner's involvement could be considered at the bail stage. Finding that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the prosecution's own investigation casts doubt on the specific role or weapon possession of an accused, the case warrants further inquiry for bail purposes.
- Can police opinion regarding an accused's involvement be considered during the disposal of a bail application?
- Does the lack of specific injury attribution to an accused justify the grant of bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Is a bail application maintainable when the police investigation report contradicts the prosecution's allegations regarding weapon possession?
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' On 19.11.2015 Nasir Mehmood and Azim Ullah were proceeding by a motorcycle to their house, when reached near the shop of Iftikhar Tarar, Hanzla (petitioner) armed with chhura along with his co-accused Faseeh-ur-Rehman armed with chhura, Abdul Rehman armed with chhura, Qasim Chatha armed with pistol and Razi Chatha armed with pistol intercepted them. It has been alleged that Faseeh-ur-Rehman caused a chhura blow at Nasir Melimood deceased hitting behind his left knee joint who fell to the ground. Thereafter co-ac cused Abdul Rehman caused a chhura blow hitting on left buttock of deceased. Then Hanzla (petitioner) caused blows with his chhura. Co- accused Qasim and Razi while aiming pistol kept on lalkaras. The deceased died of injuries at the spot. This incident was criminally conspired allegedly by Zafarullah Khan.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner ' has argued that according to prosecution's own version, no specific seat of injury has been attributed to the petitioner; partway investigation, the petitioner has been found empty handed; nothing has been recovered from him, therefore, his case squarely comes within the mischief of further inquiry , thus, instant application may be accepted as impetrated.
3. Learned DPG has opposed the submissions that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR; the deceased received more than two injuries and that the police opinion has no relevance in presence of the ocular account. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitte d that arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner tickles the Court to appreciate the facts by profundity but this practice is not permitted at bail stage.
4. Tripartite arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The injuries attributed to the petitioner are not descriptive of locales. Partway investigation, the police has opined that he was apprehended at the spot empty handed and this fact has been mention ed in the report prepared under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Police opinion may be taken into consideration for the disposal of bail application. Prima facie, a case for the grant of bail as to implicatio n of the petitioner is made out on the basis of principle of further inquiry .
Hence, instant application is accepted and the petitioner is granted bail provided his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.