Salman Mujahid vs State and another
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the murder of the complainant's husband. The petitioner was alleged to have caused a fatal firearm injury to the deceased. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions of the prosecution: the initial FIR naming the petitioner as the shooter, versus the Investigating Officer's subsequent finding that the petitioner had a valid plea of alibi and that a co-accused was the principal offender. The Court held that the existence of these two contradictory versions rendered the case one of further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, noting the petitioner's prolonged incarceration and the fact that his physical custody was no longer required for investigation, the Court granted post-arrest bail. The judgment affirms that where investigation yields conflicting accounts, the case warrants further inquiry, favoring the grant of bail.
- Does the existence of conflicting versions between the FIR and the police investigation regarding the identity of the shooter constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a plea of alibi accepted by the Investigating Officer provide a basis for granting post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Is the continued incarceration of an accused justified when the police no longer require physical custody for investigation?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C., petitioner Salman Mujahid, has sought post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 120 dated 04.08.2019, in respect of offences under Sections 302 & 34, PPC, registered at Police Station, Ghaziabad, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly stated the allegation against the petitioner is that on 03.08.2019 at 08:30 p.m. he along with his two nominated accused, while armed with firearm weapons, in furtherance of their common intention, murdered the complainant's husband namely , Muham mad Khan by causing fire arm injury to him. Hence, this case was registered.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner , learned Deputy Prosecutor General appearing for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
4. The petitioner was specifically assign ed the role of making sole fire arm injury at the abdomen of deceased Muhammad Khan, which was subsequently found fatal. During investigation, the Investigating Officer reached at a definite conclusion that the petitioner and his co-accused Usman Akram were not present at the place of occurrence being available at some other place and his plea of alibi was believed by him. The discharge report of the petitioner was prepared and submitted before the learned Magistrate, who disagreed the same vide order dated 26.09.2019. It was farther opined that in fact, the fire was made by co-accused Usman Mujahid at the deceased, who has already been enlarged on post-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2020 passed in Crl. Misc.
No. 7011-B/2019. At present, the prosecution has two versions, one put forth by the complainant and eye- witnesses wherein the petitioner was specifically assigned the role of making fire shot at the deceased and the second one was the opinion of the Investigating Officer, who has believed the plea of alibi of the petitioner and that co-accused Usman Mujahid was the principal accused, which makes the case against the petitioner being one of further inquiry into his guilt under subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is behind the bars since his for affest i.e. 13.09.2019 and at this juncture, when physical custody is not required to the police any more, his further incarceration would serve no useful purpose for the prosecution.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.