MUHAMMAD ZAHID vs The STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Zahid, who was accused in an FIR registered under sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 337A(i), 109, and 148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence and the specific allegations regarding his role in the incident. The Court observed that the deceased sustained only one injury, which was attributed to both the petitioner and a co-accused, and that witnesses had assigned only a general role to the accused persons without specifying individual actions. Holding that the case against the petitioner fell within the purview of further inquiry under the law, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that where multiple accused are alleged to have caused a single injury to a deceased and witnesses provide only general allegations without specific attribution, the case warrants further inquiry, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Does a case warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when witnesses assign only a general role to multiple accused for a single injury?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to specify which of the accused caused the fatal injury to the deceased?
- Is the lack of progress in a trial a relevant factor for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.--- Petitioner Muhammad Zahid seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No,245 dated 18.03.2014 registered under sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 337A(i), 109 and 148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Aroop District Gujranwala.
2. As per office report, learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Saif Ullah Maan Advocate was duly informed through mobile phone whereas notices Pervi had been issued to him as well as the other counsel Mr. Husnain Haider Advocate. Police official present in Court also confirms that complainant has duly been informed regarding fixation of this matter for today. However, even after repeated calls no one is appearing on behalf of the complainant and I am left with no other option but to decide this petition after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned law officer.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he fired shots with his pump action gun that hit Muhammad Waris and Muhammad Hussain. Subsequently, Muhammad Hussain expired on 21.04.2014 after more than one month of the occurrence.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. Medico Legal Report of the deceased Muhammad Hussain reflects only one injury on his person i,e, a lacerated wound of entry 3 x 3 cm x bone exposed x going deep on front of left leg upper part whereas besides petitioner co-accused Munir Ahmad is also alleged to have fired shots with his 44-bore rifle that hit Muhammad Hussain. Two injuries on the person of injured Haji Muhammad Waris, attributed to petitioner, have already been declared attracting the offences under sections 337-F(i) and 337-A(i), P.P.C. Muhammad Hussain deceased as well as other injured witnesses Munir Ahmad, Muhammad Kashif and Muhammad Waris in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. have not assigned any specific role to any of the accused and have stated that all the accused made firing due to which they became injured.
As there is only one injury on the person of the deceased that has been attributed to petitioner as well as his co-accused Munir Ahmad and all injured witnesses including Muhammad Hussain deceased in their statements have attributed general role to the petitioner, therefore, case against him prima facie falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and is one of further inquiry into his guilt. Petitioner is behind the bars since 28.12.2016 and police official present in Court states that he has no previous criminal record. Learned counsel for the petitioner states at bar that there is no progress in the trial and not even a single witness has so far been recorded. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
6. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.