IJAZ-UL-HASSAN alias GOGI vs STATE etc
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 302, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an FIR for murder. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail based on conflicting police investigation reports suggesting innocence and suicide, despite being nominated in the FIR with a specific role of firing supported by medical evidence. The Lahore High Court held that sufficient incriminating material existed to connect the petitioner with the offense, noting that the medical officer did not confirm a suicidal death, an OPD register relied upon lacked evidentiary value, and police opinions regarding innocence are not binding on the court. The court dismissed the bail petition, establishing that conflicting police investigation findings do not override direct nomination with specific roles and corroborative medical evidence at the bail stage.
- Is a police opinion regarding the innocence of an accused binding upon the court during a bail petition?
- Whether an accused nominated in the FIR with a specific role of firing is entitled to post-arrest bail when subsequent investigation reports present conflicting conclusions?
- Can an OPD register issued long after the occurrence without a medico-legal certificate be considered of high evidentiary value for granting 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 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner (Ijaz-ul-Hassan alias Gogi) seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 851 dated 16.11.2017 offences under Sections 302, 109, 148, 149, PPC Police Station City Depalpur , District Okara after dismissal of the same by the Court below .
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he committed murder of Israr Ashiq alias Pasha.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned DPG and on perusing the record with their able assistance observed as under:-- i) Occurrence took place on 16.11.2017 at 8:30 p.m. in the T.V. lounge of the house of Mst. Haleema Begum Complainant (real mother of Israr Ashiq alias Pasha deceased) she alongwith Abdul Rauf (her son-in-law) and Mst.
Sana Ashiq (her real daughter) claim themselves to the eye-witnesses of the occurrence regarding which FIR was registered on 16.1 1.2017 at 1 1:50 p.m., the petitioner is step brother of Israr Ashiq alias Pasha deceased. ii) Petitioner has been nominated in FIR with specific role of firing at Israr Ashiq alias Pasha deceased supported by Postmortem Report, which is cause of death. iii) Abdul Rasheed S.I. present in the Court submits that initially Bashir S.I investigated the case, found the petitioner involved in the commission of offence and submitted report u/S. 173, Cr.P.C. in the concerned Court against the petitioner . Thereafter , investigation team consisting of Abdul Qadir S.I and Faqir Ahmad S.I. also found. the petitioner involved in the commission of offence. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that report prepared by Maqbool Hussain inspector shows that petitioner has been found innocent during investigation as Israr Ashiq alias Pasha deceased had committed suicide and petitioner is entitled for post-arrest bail has no substance on the grounds that- iv) Medical officer who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Israr Ashiq alias Pasha deceased did not observe that death of the deceased is suicidal and not homicidal. ii) Attested copy of outdoor patient department (OPD) register issued on 5.12.2018 whereas occurrence took place on 16.1 1.2017 in absence of medico-legal certificate has lost its evidentiary value. iii) Police opinion regarding innocence of the petitioner as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is not binding upon Court. Reliance is placed on case titled "Muhammad Aslam and others vs. The State and others"
(2016 SCMR 2094 ) in which August Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed at page 2095 as under: "3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No, 2, learned Law Officer and perusing the available record with their assistance, it has been noted by us that petitioners are specifically named in the FIR. Specific role of firing at the deceased has been assigned to them. The petitioners, as confirmed by the learned Law Officer, remained fugitive from law for about 08 months. In the circumstances, the police opinion regarding their absence at the time of occurrence has not found by us to be based on solid reasons.
Even otherwise, it is for the learned trial Court to determine after recording evidence pro and contra as to whether the petitioners were present at the spot at the time of unfortunate incident or not. The trial of the case has already commenced and statements of some of the prosecution witnesses have since been recorded. In the circumstance, we are of the view that petitioners have not been able to make out a case for grant of bail."
4. In view of the above discussion, sufficient incriminating material is available against the petitioner to connect him with the commission of of fence.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition having no merits is dismissed. However , it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.