Waleed Arfaqat vs State and another
This matter comes before the Islamabad High Court through a petition filed by the petitioner seeking post-arrest bail in case First Information Report No. 252/20 dated 28.11.2020, registered under Sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 337-D, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Nilore, Islamabad. The allegations state that the petitioner, along with co-accused and while armed with weapons, attacked the complainant party, resulting in injuries to multiple persons and the subsequent death of one injured person, Aftaar. The petitioner's counsel contended that the FIR was lodged with malicious and ulterior motives, pointing out contradictory roles attributed to the petitioner, discrepancies between the medical report and ocular evidence, and the absence of any prior rivalry or grudge, thereby bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry. Conversely, the State Counsel and the complainant's counsel opposed the petition and sought the dismissal of bail. The judgment reflects initial arguments by respective counsels.
- Whether the contradictions between ocular evidence and the medico-legal report make the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does an alleged malicious motive and delay in lodging the FIR entitle an accused to post-arrest bail in a murder case?
- Whether the attribution of multiple and inconsistent roles to an accused in the FIR warrants the grant of bail after arrest?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 252/20, dated 28.11.2020, offence under Sections 302, 324, 337-F(iii), 337-D, 148, 149, P.P.C., registered at police station Nilore, Islamabad.
2. Brief allegations against the petitioner/accused are that he along with his co-accused while armed with weapons attacked upon the complainant party due to which Sohail Anjum, Junaid, Zaib and Aftaar received injuries. Subsequently one of the injured persons namely Aftaar succumbed to the injuries, hence the instant FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused contends that the instant FIR has been lodged against the present petitioner on the basis of malicious and ulterior motives to receive unlawful benefits; two different roles are mentioned in the FIR regarding participation of petitioner/accused in the occurrence; there is contradiction in Medico Legal Report with the ocular evidence; the indictments as ascribed to the petitioner are absolutely against the facts as well as based on some imbedded mala fide on the part of Complainant's side may have been whispered by anyone having ill motive towards the petitioner, otherwise the petitioner has neither any rivalry against the victim nor has any grudge of any manifestation. He has further contended that there was no occasion for the petitioner to indulge in the stated occurrence; case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry; the petitioner/accused is previously non convict. Hence he has prayed for grant of bail after arrest.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant as well as State Counsel have controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner/accused and prayed for dismissal of bail after arrest.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by