Muneer Ahmad vs State etc
This petition was filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner in a case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, involving the murder of the complainant's son. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific allegations and the police's investigative opinion. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was specifically nominated in the First Information Report with a distinct role of firing a pistol at the deceased's abdomen, which was fully corroborated by medical evidence and witness statements. The Court laid down the principle that the ipse dixit of the police is not binding upon courts of law, and where reasonable grounds exist to connect an accused with a capital offense falling within the statutory prohibition of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail cannot be granted in the absence of proven malice or mala fide on the part of the complainant.
- Is the ipse dixit of the police regarding the innocence or guilt of an accused binding upon the courts during bail proceedings?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted in a murder case where there is a specific role of direct firing attributed to the accused, supported by medical evidence and witness statements?
- Does an offense carrying the death penalty fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Through this petition filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C., petitioner Muneer Ahmad seeks his post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 153/2021, dated 25.03.2021, registered under Sections 302, 34 PPC with Police Station Kot Sultan, District Layyah.
2. Precisely as per contents of crime report on 25.03.2021, at about 05:15 p.m., the petitioner along with his co- accused while armed with fire-arm weapons committed the murder of Saqib Ali, son of the complainant.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The careful scrutiny of record transpires that the petitioner is well nominated in the FIR with specific role of making straight fire with his pistol at Saqib Ali deceased which hit him on abdomen near umbilicus, fully supported by the medical evidence. The prosecution witnesses, in their statements recorded before the investigation officer under Section 161, Cr.P.C., have fully supported the version furnished in crime report. The offence alleged against the petitioner falls within the prohibition contained in Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. During the course of investigation, the weapon of of fence was also recovered on the pointing out of present petitioner .
5. The main emphasis of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the opinion of the police, which is at variance with the crime report. It goes without saying that Ipsi dixit of the police is not binding upon the Courts. Reasonable grounds exist to believe that the petitioner has committed the crime in question. The petitioner has failed to point out any mala fide or malice on the part of complainant for his false implication in this case. The case law presented by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of this case.
6. Resultantly , this petition for post-arrest bail stands dismissed.