MUHAMMAD RAMZAN LUND and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns two post-arrest bail applications arising from a criminal case involving allegations of murder, arson, and other offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail under the principle of 'further enquiry' given the circumstances of the FIR and the prosecution's evidence. The court held that the applicants were entitled to bail, finding that the prosecution's case required further investigation. The court noted several critical factors: the implausibility of the complainant identifying sixty assailants with precision during a chaotic attack, the significant thirty-nine-hour delay in registering the FIR without explanation, the absence of a stated motive, the lack of recovery of incriminating evidence, and the existence of affidavits from prosecution witnesses exonerating one of the applicants. Furthermore, the court observed that no terrorism-related charges were applicable. Consequently, the court applied the principle that where a case falls within the ambit of 'further enquiry' under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the accused is entitled to the concession of bail pending trial.
- Does a significant, unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR constitute grounds for further enquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be granted when prosecution witnesses have sworn affidavits exonerating the accused?
- Does the inability of the prosecution to recover incriminating evidence support a finding of further enquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution's narrative of the incident appears implausible?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 364, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
OMAR SIAL, J.---The Applicants have sought post arrest bail in crime number 46 of 2010 registered under sections 302, 324, 436, 427, 364, 147, 148, 149, 337-H(2) and 452, P.P.C. at Police Station, Khenju.
2. Both the captioned bail applications arise out of the same crime number as such I will dispose of both applications with this common order.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the FIR are that on 3-9-2010, Ali Murad lodged a report at the police station stating therein that Ali Ahmed and Ali Muhammad are his brothers. He further stated that on 2-9-2010 he was sitting in his home when at about 7:00 a.m., sixty persons appeared each armed with weapons which included Kalashnikovs, G-3 rifles, LMG rifles and rocket launchers. Applicant Jalaluddin was said to be armed with a rocket launcher while Applicant Mohammad Ramzan was armed with a "danger rifle". All the sixty assailants first stated loudly that "we will not spare you" after which Applicant Jalauddin Lund fired at the complainant with his rocket launcher. The rocket launcher shell missed the complainant but hit his brother Ali Ahmed standing nearby. At least ten other accused fired from their weapons which included rocket launchers. Applicant Jalauddin Lund then set four houses on lire. Six persons died during this whole incident. The FIR was registered.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the Applicants and the learned APG and have also scanned the record available at this stage. The complainant and his counsel remained absent despite notice. My observations are as follows:-- i. It seems odd at this stage that the complainant who was present in the home with his brothers could identify with such great accuracy, sixty members of the assailants together with their parentage and the type of weapons they carried. In spite of the arms carried by sixty assailants being freely discharged in a small room, which also included at least two or three fires from a rocket launcher, the complainant did not receive a scratch and instead in the midst of such commotion noted with great accuracy the persons who fired and the parts of the body where their respective fires hit the deceased. The story, as narrated in the FIR, requires further enquiry on the face of it. There is admittedly an ongoing tribal tight between the parties and as such at this stage throwing the net-wide cannot be ruled out completely. ii. Two of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Kouro Khan and Mir Muhammad; who are both relatives of the complainant have sworn affidavits that the Applicant Jalaluddin is not involved in this incident. Applicant Muhammad Ramzan has not been assigned any, role in the FIR except his presence on the site. iii. The learned APG has not been able to satisfy me that any recovery has been made. He does oppose the bail on the ground that this is a terrorism offence. I, however, note that the Applicants have not been charged with any offence under the Terrorism Act. iv. The incident is said to have occurred on 2-9-2010 at 7:00 a.m. However it was not until 3-9-2010 at 10:00 p.m. when the FIR was registered. Keeping the magnitude of the incident alleged by the complainant, this delay of thirty nine hours requires further enquiry, as in the FIR too, the complainant is silent on the why the delay occurred. v. The complainant has not even indicated a motive in his FIR for sixty persons to commit a crime of such magnitude as alleged. vi. The complainant alleges in the FIR that Applicant. Jalaluddin is a notorious dacoit. However, no evidence is on record at this stage to substantiate the same. vii. The case of the Applicants, in view of the above observations requires further enquiry and thus falls within the ambit of section 497(2), Cr.P.C.
5. Above are the reasons for my short order of 17-5-2017 in terms of which the bail applications of the Applicants were allowed and they were admitted to bail subject to their furnishing a solvent surety in the amount of Rs, 100,000/- (rupees one lac) each together with P.R. bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.