Abdul Ghaffar vs The State and another
The petitioner, Abdul Ghaffar, filed a petition for post-arrest bail in connection with FIR No. 99, involving charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after his bail application was dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the conflicting versions presented by the prosecution regarding his involvement in the alleged offense. The Court observed that the initial investigation placed the petitioner at the scene with a weapon but without attributing specific injuries to him, while a subsequent investigation concluded he was not present at the scene at all. The Court held that these contradictory findings by the investigation agency created a situation of further inquiry, thereby entitling the petitioner to the concession of bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the observations made were tentative and restricted solely to the bail proceedings.
- Does the existence of conflicting investigation reports regarding an accused's presence at the crime scene constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail when the prosecution's own investigation provides contradictory versions of the accused's involvement?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
SADAQAT ALI KHAN, J. Petitioner (Abdul Ghaffar) seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No. 99 dated 05.03.023 offences under Sections 302 and 34 P.P.C Police Station Piplan, District Mianwali, after refusing of the same by the Court below.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Allegedly, petitioner and his brother Abdul Jabbar caused firearm injuries on the person of Hameed Ullah (deceased).
4. Learned DPG on instruction of Aamir SI/SHO present in Court, submits that in first investigation, it transpired that although petitioner was present at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence with 30-bore pistol but he did not clause any injury to the deceased whereas in second investigation, it came on the surface that he was not present at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence. In these circumstances, prosecution itself has two versions viz a viz the petitioner, first of the complainant according to which petitioner caused injuries on the person of deceased and second one is of the investigation agency according to which petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased. All these facts surely bring the case of petitioner within the ambit of further inquiry. 2020 SCMR 1241 "Najeeb Ullah v. The State and another", 2020 SCMR 417 "Zulfiqar v. The State and another", 2019 SCMR 1458 "Saif Ullah v. The State and others" and 2012 SCMR 1137 "Ehsan Ullah v. The State."
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed and the petitioner (Abdul Ghaffar) is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000,000/- (Rupees Five Lac Only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this bail petition.