SAIF ULLAH vs The STATE and others
This criminal petition arose from the Lahore High Court's refusal to grant post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure based on the police's investigative findings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and granted bail, noting that despite being nominated in the First Information Report for firing at the deceased, the police investigation concluded that the petitioner arrived after the incident was nearly over and did not cause any injury. Furthermore, the petitioner had been incarcerated since October 2016 with no recoveries made from him. The Court held that these circumstances rendered the petitioner's involvement a matter of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, justifying the grant of bail subject to a bail bond.
- Whether a petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the police investigation concludes they arrived after the incident and caused no injury, despite being nominated in the FIR?
- Does the lack of recovery from an accused during investigation support a finding that the case requires further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Can a delay in filing a criminal petition for bail before the Supreme Court be condoned upon a showing of sufficient cause?
- sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C.
- section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure
ORDER
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Crl. P. No,252-L of 2019 : For the reasons mentioned in the Misc., Application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the Criminal petition is condoned.
2. Impugned herein is the order dated 30.11.2017, whereby bail was refused to the petitioner by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore in case FIR No,234 dated 11.09.2016, offence under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Mochh, District Mianwali.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of available record, it has been observed by us that though petitioner is nominated in the FIR with the allegation that fires so shot by petitioner allegedly hit on the face of Shah Alam Khan (deceased), but as confirmed by the learned Additional Prosecutor General under instructions of the police officer present with record, it was concluded by the police that petitioner reached at the spot when the incident was almost over and he did not cause any injury on the person of deceased. He is behind the bars since 10.10.2016. Nothing was recovered from him during the course of investigation. In the circumstances, case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry falling within the ambit of section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. For the foregoing, the instant criminal petition is converted, into an appeal and the same is hereby allowed. The appellant Saif Ullah is allowed bail (in the instant FIR) subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (One hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 11 cases
- Junaid Versus State 2026 MLD 97
- Muhammad Saleem Versus State 2025 YLR 731
- Abdul Ghaffar vs The State and another 2025 YLR 789
- Hassan Iqbal vs The State and another 2022 LHC 2006
- Hassan Iqbal vs State & another 2023 PLJ Cr.C. 156
- HASSAN IQBAL Versus State 2023 PCrLJN 100
- Muhammad Javed etc vs State etc PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1490
- Ayaz Ahmad vs State and another PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1480
- Ayaz Ahmad vs The State and another 2022 LHC 2010
- ALI MUHAMMAD Versus State 2022 YLRN 8
- Syed Junaid Ahmed and another vs The State 2023 YLR 1740