Muteeb Ali vs State etc
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 302/109/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the murder of a victim who was shot while riding a motorcycle. Although the petitioner was not initially named in the First Information Report, the prosecution implicated him through a supplementary statement and subsequent identification parade. The investigation also led to the recovery of a motorcycle based on the petitioner's pointing out. The Lahore High Court examined the record and arguments presented. The Court held that the petitioner's connection to the commission of the offence, established through the identification parade and recovery, provided reasonable grounds to believe he was involved in the crime. Given that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the petition for post-arrest bail was dismissed.
- Does the implication of an accused through a supplementary statement and identification parade constitute reasonable grounds for refusing bail in a murder case?
- Is an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered to fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail be denied if the accused is connected to the crime through the recovery of evidence on his pointing out?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition, the petitioner Mutee b Ali seeks post arrest bail in case/FIR No. 507 dated 30.11.2020, offence under Sections 302/109/34, PPC, registered at Police Station City , District V ehari.
2. As per FIR, two unknown accused persons, armed with pistols, while boarding on motorcycle, raised lalkara for killing Asif and thereafter , the person who boarded behind the driver , made fire hitting on backside of head of Asif, who fell down from the motorcycle and succumbed to the fire-arm injury .
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. A Although the petitioner is not nominated in the FIR yet his implication through supplementary statement followed by establishment of his identity as a culprit through identification parade, coupled with recovery of motorcycle on his pointing out and particularly when he has been found connected with the commission of offence during the course of investigation,. are sufficient for holding that reasonable grounds exist for believing that the petitioner had committed the offence, failing within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., resultantly the instant petition is dismissed.