MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus State
This is a bail application arising out of a criminal case involving a matrimonial dispute and a counter-FIR incident at the applicant's house, resulting in injuries and the subsequent death of a lady. The core legal question is whether the 70-year-old applicant, to whom no specific firearm injury or overt act of firing is attributed and who was named merely as the head of the family, is entitled to post-arrest bail when the incident occurred at his own house and counter-versions exist. The Sindh High Court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granted bail to the applicant, ruling that the liberty of an accused cannot be withheld merely to procure the arrest of absconding co-accused. The key principle laid down is that general allegations without specific overt acts in counter-version incidents involving elderly family members warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused when no specific overt act of firing or injury is attributed to him in a counter-case?
- Can the liberty of an accused be withheld solely to procure the surrender or arrest of absconding co-accused?
- Does a case involving counter-FIRs arising from a sudden matrimonial dispute at the accused's house make out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J .---This bail application is out-come of a F.I.R. No.217 of 2007, Police Station Mangopir, Gadap Town, Karachi in which one Mst. Aisha had received fire-arm injury of her leg alleged to have been fired by Abdul Baqi and Ghulam Hussain. Present applicant Muhammad Ramzan is father of these two accused persons and his presence has been shown in his own house at the time of incident. There are counter-cases between the parties. Incident has taken place at the house of applicant Muhammad Ramzan.
2. Brief facts of F.I.R. No.215 of 2007 are that the complainant. Abdul Bashir had lodged report through his statement recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. in the Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. He has stated that his two sisters namely Shahida and Tahira were married. Tahira had matrimonial dispute with her husband Ghulam Moin and as such she came back to the house of her parents while Shahida was retained by her husband forcibly and was not allowed to meet with her parents. The complainant states that on 16-9-2007 he along with his brother Tariq, wife Aisha Parveen and father Muhammad Umer went to the house of his brother-in-law, at about 12-30 p.m. they reached there. The complainant's wife Aisha, his mother Zohra Bibi and his aunt Zarina went inside the house while his younger brother Tariq and his father Muhammad Umer sat outside the house at an Estate Agency. It is stated that at that time Muhammad Ramzan, the father-in-law of his sister and his wife Allah Wasai along with their children were present in the house. After sometime Bashir, Tariq and Muhammad Umer went inside the house to take Shahida along with them. It is stated that Shahida was frightened. In the meantime her husband's brother Ghulam Hussain came at home and stated that Shahida will not go along with her parents. Scuffle started and in the meantime Shahida's husband Ali Hassan also came at home. It is alleged that during this fight Abdul Baqi and Ghulam Hussain took out their Double Barrel Rifle from their house and had started indiscriminate firing with intention to kill. One bullet had hit on the right leg of wife of Bashir namely Mst. Aisha, who started bleeding. The complainant had received head injury. The injured were brought in private Suzuki to the Abbasi Shaheed Hospital where Aisha was taken to the operation theatre and had subsequently died in the ward after eight days of the incident.
3. Facts of the counter-F.I.R. No.217 of 2007 lodged on the same day in respect of the same incident by the complainant Muhammad Ramzan (present applicant) are that he owns a grocery shop near his house. His two sons namely Ghulam Hussain and Ali Hassan were married in Chandio family, who lived in Chandio village, Gizri. Wife of Ghulam Hussian namely Tahira had dispute with her husband and for last eight months she was living in the house of her parents, while wife of Ali Hassan namely Shahida was living happily with her husband at the house of her husband. On 16-9-2007 at about 1-30 p.m. the in-laws of the sons of " he complainant namely Bashir, Tariq, Nadeem and Muhammad Umer along with 2/3 women came at their house and wanted to take Shahida along with them. The complainant had resisted where upon they started beating him with legs and fist blows. In the meantime Nadeem had fired in air through Repeater. The complainant's sons Ali Hassan and Ghulam Hussain came running in the hose after hearing the firing reports, Mohalla people had also come. All these people left after extending threats. Police had registered the case under sections 147/148/ 149/337-A(ii), 337-H(ii).
4. Accused in counter-case viz. F.I.R. No.217 of 2007 were granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi West. The Bail Application of present applicant was rejected by the learned V-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant Mr. Ali Nawaz Dehraj and Mr. Muhammad Bux Awan for the State.
6. The main argument of Mr. Dehraj is that there are counter version of the same incident. Incident had taken place at the house of the applicant. The applicant Muhammad Ramzan has not been attributed any role of firing upon the deceased and there was no premeditation on the part of the applicant or his family to pick up this fight. He has relied upon case-law reported in Yaroo v. The State 2004 SCMR 864; Mehmood Akhtar and another v. Haji Nazir Ahmad and 4 others 1995 SCMR 310; Wakeel Hassan v. The State 1976 'SCMR 159; Muhammad Aslam alias Photo v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1349 and Janib Chandio v. State 1997 MLD 1691. He has also placed before me unreported orders of the High Court in Criminal Bail Application No.1120 of 1997, and criminal Bail Application No.634 of 2000. I have perused the case-law, which supports the contention of the Advocate for the Applicant.
7. Mr. Muhammad Bux Awan, learned State counsel states that all the co-accused are absconding. Muhammad Ramzan is the head of the family. Only one accused has been arrested while all others are at large and in case he is granted bail he will also disappear and the entire prosecution case will fail.
8. I am not impressed by the arguments of the learned State counsel. Liberty of one accused cannot be withheld in order to procure the surrender/arrest of co-accused who are at large.
9. Facts of the case as disclosed in both the F.I.Rs. clearly show that the incident had taken place at the house of the applicant Muhammad Ramzan. Muhammad Ramzan and his family had no knowledge that Muhammad Bashir and his family are visiting their house on the day of incident at 12-30 p.m. The women were also along with the other party and the entire dispute was matrimonial in nature, which resulted into death of one lady, who had gone from Gizri village to Mangopir all the way in order to invite trouble for herself. Had she not gone there, the incident would have not taken place. As far as case of present applicant is concerned there is an allegation of general nature against him. No injury to deceased has been attributed to the present applicant. His age is about 70 years. He has been nominated in this case only because he is head of the family.
10. In the circumstances mentioned above and in the light of case-law relied upon by the learned Advocate for the applicant in support of his contention, I am of the clear view that the present case requires further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. into the guilt of the present applicant and during pendency of the inquiry the applicant is entitled to grant of bail. I therefore, grant him bail upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100.000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with P.R. bond in the like amount tot the satisfaction of the trial Court.
11. H.B.T./M-95/K Order accordingly.