MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was accused in an FIR of causing firearm injuries with a .12 bore gun to the complainant's servant. The core legal question is whether the petitioner has made out a case for further inquiry under criminal jurisprudence given that he was declared innocent in two police investigations, no weapon was recovered from him, and he had previously lodged a murder case against the complainant. The Lahore High Court held that the absence of motive attributed to the petitioner in the FIR, his exoneration in successive police investigations, the lack of weapon recovery, and the admitted previous enmity involving a prior murder case against the complainant collectively bring the case within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that where previous enmity exists, police investigations favor innocence, and no recovery is effected, reasonable grounds exist for further inquiry warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether the exoneration of an accused in successive police investigations constitutes grounds for further inquiry warranting bail?
- Does the absence of weapon recovery during physical remand entitle an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Whether previous enmity and a prior counter-case between the parties create sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant as the petitioner was complainant in case F.I.R. No. 338 of 1997, dated 11‑7‑1979, Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal under sections 302, 324, 353, 186/34, P.P.C. read with 109/34, P.P.C. for the murder of his brother. He further submits that there was no motive on the part of the petitioner to have caused injuries to the servant of the complainant namely Muhammad Aslam. He also submits that in two investigations, conducted by D.S.P. Chichawatni and D.S.P. Crime Range Branch Multan, petitioner has been declared innocent, that during physical remand no weapon was recovered from him.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., he was armed with .12 bore gun and caused fire arm injuries on the person of Muhammad Aslam. He further submits that opinion of the police Officers is ,not finding on this Court and moreover without any evidence petitioner has been found innocent. He further submits that earlier case lodged by the petitioner against the present complainant of the F.I.R. was cancelled.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner has been found innocent by the D.S.P. on the ground, that petitioner was falsely implicated due to previous enmity.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the F.I.R. no motive is attributed to the petitioner to have caused injuries on the person of Muhammad Aslam servant of Haji Rasheed Ahmad and in two investigations petitioner was declared innocent. No weapon was recovered from / him during physical remand. Moreover, it is a hard fact, that about one year prior to the present occurrence, petitioner had named the presently complainant Haji Rasheed Ahmad as one of the accused, who had abetted the murder of his brother. All these facts called for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner.
5. In this view of the matter, petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like‑amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
N.H.Q./M‑1096/L
Bail allowed.