Zahid Rasheed vs State and another
This is a post-arrest bail petition filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arising out of FIR No. 100 of 2022 registered at Police Station Saddar Mianchannu, District Khanewal, for offences including murder and murderous assault under Sections 302, 324, 337-D, 337-F(ii), 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 109, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the specific role attributed to him in the FIR, supporting medical evidence, and a belated plea of alibi. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is named in the FIR with a specific, active role in a murderous assault causing one death and multiple injuries, and that the belated and vague plea of alibi cannot aid the defense at the bail stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the case falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and does not warrant bail. The key principle laid down is that a plea of alibi must be raised at the earliest opportunity and maintained consistently, and failure to do so reacts adversely against its genuineness during tentative assessment for bail.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when named in the FIR with a specific role in a crime falling within the prohibitory clause?
- What are the legal requirements and evidentiary value of a plea of alibi raised at the bail stage?
- Does a belatedly raised and vague plea of alibi suffice to dislodge prosecution evidence during a tentative assessment for bail?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-D, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Instant petition has been filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C. by Zahid Rasheed petitioner seeking post arrest bail in case FIR No. 100 of 2022 dated 11.02.2022 registered at Police Station Saddar Mianchannu, District Khanewal for the offences under Sections 302, 324, 337-D, 337-F(ii), 337-F(i), 337-A(i), 109, 34, PPC. Earlier application of the petitioner for the same relief was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianchannu, vide order dated 18.04.2022.
2. Precisely, as per FIR, accused/petitioner while armed with dagger along with co-accused, launched a murderous assault on complainant party, in result of which, Nouman lost his life whereas complainant Muhammad Haroon Mukhtar, Rameez, Rizwan, Suleman and Israr Ahmad received injuries. Specific role ascribed to accused/ petitioner is that he made repeated dagger blows on the person of Rizwan injured on different parts of his body as well as on the fingers of right hand of Israr Ahmad.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Deputy District Public Prosecutor and upon tentative assessm ent of the material available on record, it has been noticed straightway that accused/petitioner is named in FIR with specific role, who actively participated in the occurrence being member of the unlawful assembly in result of which one person lost his life and five persons received injuries. Specific role of inflicting repeated dagger blows on the person of injured Rizwan hitting on right side of his chest, left flank and on different parts of his body has been attributed to him. He also gave dagger blow hitting on fingers of right hands of injured Israr Ahmad.
In their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C, the prosecution witnesses have fully implicated the petitioner. Injuries caused accused/petitioner and co-accused, ex-facie are supported by medical evidence. So far as plea of Alibi raised by accused/petitioner is concerned, it may be observed that an Alibi denotes presence of an accused person elsewhere when occurrence took place. It is equally essential for the proof of an Alibi that it should cover an account for whole of the time of the transaction in question or at least for so much of it as it render it impossible that an accused could have committed the alleged crime. The credibility of an Alibi in above backdrop is properly considered if it has been set up by the accused person at the moment when the accusation is raised against him and has been maintained consistently throughout the remaining proceedings. In case plea of Alibi has not been set up at the earliest stage, it would indeed react adversely to its genuineness. In the instant case, accused/petitioner firstly moved his pre-arrest bail before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mian Channu on 16.02.2022. Bare perusal of the contents of that application would reveal that accused/petitioner did not at all take the plea of Alibi what to speak of giving the details as to place and time where he was present at the time of occurrence. Accused/petitioner, however, belatedly raised the said plea that too was vague as to time, place and person where and with whom he was present inasmuch as the said facts were not disclosed by the accused/ petitioner in specific terms. At the moment, material available on record sufficiently connects the accused/petitioner with commission of alleged crime which entails the punishment falling within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497 of Cr.P.C.
4. For the reasons recorded above, no case for grant of post arrest bail is made out. Petition in hand is dismissed. It is however made clear that any observation qua plea of Alibi made hereinabove is tentative in nature only for the decision of instant bail application and the same would not influence the learned trial Court in any manner whatsoever while deciding the main case and the same would be considered and decided by learned trial Court in the light of evidence led by prosecution and defence as well.