MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Ismail, who is accused of involvement in a murder case registered under FIR No. 666 of 1997. The petitioner sought bail on grounds including the alleged innocence of a co-accused, affidavits from independent persons contradicting the prosecution's version of events, and the delay in the commencement of the trial. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the specific allegations and evidence available at the pre-trial stage. The Court held that the petitioner was specifically named in the FIR, with a distinct role attributed to him regarding the fatal injury caused to the deceased. Finding that the ocular evidence was corroborated by the medical report and that the incident occurred in broad daylight, the Court determined that there was no issue of identification or substitution. Consequently, the Court refused the bail application, holding that the offence was punishable with death and the statutory period for bail had not yet expired.
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when specifically named in the FIR with a distinct role attributed to them in a murder case?
- Does the existence of conflicting affidavits from independent persons automatically entitle an accused to bail during the tentative assessment stage?
- Can bail be granted in a capital offence where the statutory period for the delay in trial has not yet expired?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner was involved in a case F.I.R. No.666 of 1997 dated 28‑11‑1997 for an offence under section 3002/324/109/34 P.P.C., registered at Police Station Saddar Arif Wala District, Pakpattan Sharif by complainant Muhammad Vakeel alleging that this complainant alongwith Muhammad Ibrahim (deceased) his son, Muhammad Hafeez and Ismail P.Ws. were proceeding from their village 41/EB on bicycle to appear' before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala and reached in the area of Chak No.73/EB, there came three persons on a motor cycle from behind them, all were armed with .12 bore gun shouted that they would not leave them alive and they would teach them lesson for murder of Muhammad Tufail Chauhan of their village. Muhammad Sharif accused was armed with .12 bore gun and so Liaqat Ali and Ismail (present petitioner) and his co‑accused opened fire shot first of all hitting, Muhammad Hafeez injured P.W. on his left thigh who fell down, then the present petitioner fired with his gun hitting Muhammad Ibrahim on his abdomen who also fell down. Then Muhammad Shard co‑accused of the petitioner fired shot to the deceased on his temporal region. Due to these injuries Muhammad Ibrahim died. The background of the present occurrence is that prior to the present occurrence on 27‑5‑1995 Muhammad Tufail son of Shaakir had been murdered and a case of that murder vide F.I.R. No. 151 of 1996 under sections 302, 324, 452, 148 and 149, P.P.C., was registered against the complainant party.
2. Earlier this bail has been refused by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala on 25‑11‑1998.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has now pressed the bail on the ground that the role attributed to the petitioner is that he caused fire‑arm injury to the deceased and that co‑accused Liaqat has been declared innocent by the police, had four independent persons have sworn affidavits that there were only two person, one who issued gun fire and the other who was hit and there was no third person and that the investigation is complete and the petitioner is in jail for the last one year three months and 9 days and the trial has not yet been commenced.
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail on the grounds that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. and specific role is attributed to him that his fire hit the belly of the deceased and that the medico‑legal report confirms that fact and that the F.I.R. was promptly lodged and it was a day light occurrence and that has no question of identification or substitution. The learned counsel for the State has supported the arguments of learned counsel for the complainant. '
5. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides and perused the record.
6. The tentative assessment shows that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R., specific role has been attributed to him. The ocular and the medical evidence are supporting each other in respect of the nature and seat of injury, the incident is of broad daylight. The question of identification or substitution does not arise. The offence is punishable with death and the statutory period has not yet expired, as such it is not a fit case for grant of bail at this stage.
7. In his view of the matter the bail is refused.
N.H.Q./M‑1126/L
Bail refused.