Muhammad Ashraf vs The State and another
This matter arises from a criminal petition for leave to appeal against the refusal or consideration of post-arrest bail in a murder case where the victim was shot dead in broad daylight near district courts due to an old blood feud. The core legal question is whether the petitioner, who was not initially named in the FIR but later identified in a test identification parade as an unknown assailant and hired killer, is entitled to bail under the statutory provisions governing further inquiry. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petitioner is entitled to bail because his belated attribution does not correspond with the medical evidence regarding the number of entry wounds or the initial crime report, thereby bringing his case within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where the role assigned to a subsequently identified unknown accused conflicts with medical findings and the initial report, it creates a case for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail pending trial.
- Whether an accused not named in the initial crime report but subsequently identified in a test identification parade is entitled to bail when his attribution conflicts with medical evidence?
- Does a discrepancy between the number of unknown assailants in the FIR and the medical report bring the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the alleged culpability of a hired assassin be properly assessed only after the recording of evidence at trial?
- Section 54, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Muhammad Arif, 52, was shot dead at 2:55 p.m. on 11.12.2019, in front of District Courts, within the precincts of Police Station Civil Lines Mandi Bahauddin, shortly after attending court proceedings while awaiting public transport along with Gul Muhammad, Bashir Ahmed, Tariq Mehmood and Faiz Ahmed, PWs; Tariq Mehmood, deceased's real brother lodged the report with the police and blamed Khawar Riaz, Atif Nawaz, Muhammad Zubair and Khizar Hayat accompanied by two unknown assailants, with multiple fire shots to the deceased on the instigation of Riaz Ahmad, Muhammad Ashraf son of Ghulam Rasool and Armaghan Asim. Past blood feud is cited as motive for the crime. Autopsy revealed three independent entry wounds while an existing projectile re-entered the body again with a corresponding exit. Barring Muhammad Zubair, attributed a fire shot to Gul Muhammad PW, remainder of the accused were assigned shots to the deceased. Khizar Hayat co-accused, assigned a specific shot to the deceased, was exonerated during the course of investigation and granted pre-arrest, without challenge by the complainant.
The petitioner emerged in the array as one of the unknown assailants; arrested, on 25.01.2020 under section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, he alongside Zishan Wali and Muhammad Iftikhar was identified by the witnesses in a test identification parade held on 28.01.2020 as a hired assassin engaged by the co- accused to prosecute their object
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Be that as it may, the petitioner was not initially named in the crime report; he has been picked with two others by graduating the number of unknown assailants to three, who according to the complainant had also effectively targeted the deceased, medically found to have three entry wounds, individually assigned to the nominated accused. These circumstances, result of the test identification parade notwithstanding, nonetheless, squarely bring petitioner's case within the remit of subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code ibid as attribution belatedly assigned to him does not correspond both with the findings recorded by the Medical Officer as well as the number of unknown assailants mentioned in the crime report. In this backdrop, his alleged culpability of being a paid participant in the crime can be best settled after recording of evidence.
Criminal Petition No.923 of 2020 is converted into appeal and allowed; petitioner/appellant shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/duty Judge.
Cited by 4 cases
- Arshad Iqbal vs The State and another 2025 IHC 124
- Imtiaz Hussain & Mukhtiar, Nadeem Ali vs The State 2025 SHC 180
- Imtiaz Hussain Versus State 2025 YLR 1865
- Qaim vs The State 2025 YLR 785