MUBASHIR ALI vs STATE and another
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Mubashir Ali, in connection with FIR No. 141/2016 registered under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the evidentiary discrepancies in the prosecution's case. The Court observed a one-day delay in lodging the FIR without a plausible explanation and noted a significant contradiction between the FIR's allegations and the Medico-Legal Certificate regarding the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim. Furthermore, the Court noted that a co-accused had already been declared innocent by the police and granted bail. The Court held that these factors necessitated further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the absence of a forensic report regarding the recovered weapon rendered the recovery inconclusive at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to bail, emphasizing that his continued incarceration would not serve the prosecution's interest, especially as investigation was complete and trial conclusion was not imminent.
- Does a contradiction between the FIR allegations and the Medico-Legal Certificate regarding the nature of injuries warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a bail application be granted when the police have not yet obtained a forensic report regarding the alleged weapon of offence?
- Is a delay in lodging an FIR without a plausible explanation a relevant factor for the grant of bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this application the Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 141/2016 dated 28.05.2016 registered at Police Station Dera Rahim, District Sahiwal, for offences under Sections 324/34, PPC.
2. As per crime report, the prosecution case is that on 23.5.2016 the Complainant along with his wife Mst. Humera and niece Mst. Shaheen was present in his house when he received phone call from the accused party challenging him to come out of his house so that they might take revenge for the insult that' the Complainant had caused to them in an incident that took place two days earlier.
The Complainant came out of his house. The accused party aimed their pistols at him with intent to take his life.. On hue and cry, his wife and niece rushed towards him. They laid on him to protect him from any harm from the accused party. Meanwhile, the Petitioner Mubashir Ali made a pistol shot which landed on the right calf of Mat. Humera. Co-accused Tariq made a second fire shot which also landed on the right calf of the said lady. The other accused persons, namely Farooq and Ali Mardan, made indiscriminate firing to create panic. Fire shots of Farooq and Ali Mardan hit on the left thumb and arm of Mst. Shaheen.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It has been observed that there is a delay of one day in lodging the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the Complainant. Further, there is a contradiction in the contents of the FIR and the Medico-Legal Certificate. The Complainant alleged that Mst. Humera had sustained two injuries on right calf one of Which was caused by the Petitioner while the other by co-accused Tariq. However, perusal of the Medico-Legal Certificate shows that only two injuries are available on the person of the victim. One is the exit while the other is the entry wound. Co- accused Tariq was declared innocent by the police and he has been admitted to bail by the learned trial Court. In this view of this contradiction it requires further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. to determine the guilt of the Petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the Complainant vehemently argued that the pistol, weapon of offence, was also recovered from the Petitioner which connects him with the commission of the crime. In this respect, it has been observed that the police have not so far obtained any report from the fire-arm expert. In the circumstances, the question as to whether the alleged recovery is an incriminating evidence against the Petitioner cannot be determined at this stage.
6. The Petitioner is behind the bars and is no more required for any further investigation by the police. The trial is not like to be concluded in the foreseeable future. His continuous incarceration would not advance the case of the prosecution.
7. In view of the above, this application is allowed. The Petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.