MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and another vs The STATE through P.-G., Punjab and others
This criminal petition challenged an order of the Lahore High Court refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case involving multiple charges, including murder and terrorism, registered at Police Station City District Mianwali. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given their plea of alibi, supported by evidence that they were incarcerated in Central Jail, Rawalpindi, at the time of the incident. The Supreme Court observed that the District Police Officer (DPO) Mianwali verified the petitioners' confinement in jail during the relevant period. Although the prosecution alleged the petitioners were involved via conspiracy or abetment, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to point to any evidence supporting this claim. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioners' case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the petitioners, establishing the principle that where a credible plea of alibi is verified by official records and the prosecution fails to substantiate allegations of conspiracy, a case for further inquiry is made out, warranting the grant of bail.
- Does the verification of a plea of alibi by police authorities constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is bail permissible when the prosecution fails to provide evidence of conspiracy or abetment against accused persons who were incarcerated at the time of the alleged offense?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal to grant bail in a criminal matter?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
- Section 13, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 20, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 65, Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 9(b), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners have called in question the order dated 05.11.2018, whereby a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore refused them bail in case FIR No.28 dated 09.01.2018, offence under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 427, 109, P.P.C. later added section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station City District Mianwali.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of available record, it has been observed by us that allegation against the petitioners, as per FIR, is that on the fateful day and time, they along with their co-accused armed with firearm weapons, made an assault on the complainant side, as a result whereof five persons lost their lives and eight persons sustained firearm injuries. The petitioners are asking bail on the ground that on the relevant date and time, they were confined in Central Jail Rawalpindi: petitioner No.1 Muhammad Arshad was booked in case FIR No.12/2018 dated 07.01.2018, offence under sections 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance; A petitioner No. 2 Muhammad Akram was booked in case FIR No.11/2018 dated 07.01.2018, offence under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and they were released on bail on 11.01.2018 and 15.01.2018 respectively. On the last date of hearing, DPO Mianwali was directed to ascertain as to whether petitioners were actually confined in Central Jail, Rawalpindi when the fateful incident took place. DPO Mianwali is present in Court and states that he has verified the fact that on the relevant date and time, both the petitioners were confined in Central Jail, Rawalpindi in aforementioned criminal cases. He, however, states that as per police investigation, the petitioners are responsible to the extent of conspiracy/abetment. Nevertheless, learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant was not able to point out any evidence from the record regarding conspiracy/abetment by the petitioners. The worth and evidentiary value of the plea of alibi taken by the petitioners and their involvement in this case to the extent of conspiracy/abetment shall be determined by the learned trial Court, of course, after recording evidence of the parties. At the moment, the case against the petitioners calls for further inquiry within the ambit of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. For the foregoing, the instant petition is converted into an appeal and the same is hereby allowed.
The appellants-Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Akram are allowed bail (in the instant FIR) subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- (two hundred thousand) each, with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Tariq Versus State 2025 YLR 2702
- Rehman Ali etc vs State and another PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 711