GHULAM MURTAZA Versus STATE
This bail application arises from a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident involving a fatal shooting and injuries. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail given the contradictions between the ocular account and medical evidence, and the fact that the police investigation found the petitioner innocent. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that the complainant initially suppressed injuries sustained by a co-accused, and that the medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries attributed to the petitioner contradicts the ocular account. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the submission of a challan does not preclude the grant of bail if a case for further inquiry is established. The key principle laid down is that where there is a contradiction between medical and ocular evidence, and the investigation report favors the accused, a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is made out, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage.
- Does the submission of a challan to the trial court bar the grant of bail to an accused person?
- Can bail be granted when there is a significant contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular account?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the police investigation report concludes they are innocent?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused party in the initial FIR entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt at the bail stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this bail application under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 116 of 2001 registered on 16-3-2001 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 109, P.P.C. with Police Station Manga Mandi, Tehsil and District Lahore on the statement of Sarfraz Ahmad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16-3-2001 at about 5-30 p.m. the complainant alongwith his brother Maqbool Ahmad, Riaz Ahmad, Jamil Ahmad and Asghar Ali P.Ws. were coming on a car of Asghar Ali bearing registration No.PN-3953 to their house/Haveli, when they reached near Khu Tanwan Wala within the area of Bath Siraj Din Nazir Ahmad, Rashid, Murtaza, Ghulam Rasool alias Kalu and Munawar Hussain armed with pistols were present on the tractor which they hit with the car of complainant party, as a result whereof car was stopped and afterwards the firing was started on the deceased and the complainant. But the role ascribed to the petitioner is that he fired with his pistol at Maqbool Ahmad deceased hitting him on the right thigh. The motive of the occurrence is allegedly some civil dispute over the agricultural land of the deceased and complainant with their step brother Siraj Din which is pending in the Civil Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a case of two versions. Nazir has got lodged the cross version in the same F. I. R. in which he has stated that on the day of occurrence car collided with the accused party and the deceased was given iron blow by Nazir Ahmad. Companions of the deceased fired at the accused party and Nazir Ahmad received blunt weapon injury on the stomach which are grievous. Then Rashid in self-defence has fired hitting Maqbool Ahmad deceased. It is also contended that some injury on the right thigh has been attributed to Rashid Ahmad co accused brother of the petitioner as well. He further contends that the injuries on the person of Nazir which are fire-arm have been suppressed by the complainant in his statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. but on the same day in the supplementary statement he has admitted the receiving of injuries h. Nazir Ahmad accused during the occurrence It is further contended that the police his found the petitioner as innocent and recommended for his discharge, but the Ilaqa Magistrate did not agree with the police report hence this bail application has been moved. It is further contended that the medical evidence is in contradiction with the ocular account as alleged in the F.I.R. The post-mortem report reveals that the deceased Maqbool Ahmad received seven injuries out of which injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have been caused with blunt edged weapon whereas injuries Nos. 5, 6-A and 6-B have been caused by the fire-arms. According to the medical report one injury is entry wound and the other is exit wound and two shots have not been received by the alleged complainant in his statement.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application on the ground that the F.I.R. has been lodged without inordinate delay. The petitioner has not only been named in the F.I.R. but specific role of firing on the deceased has been ascribed to him. It is further contended that the case falls within the prohibitory clause. Maqbool Ahmad died during the occurrence but Jamil Ahmad and Sarfraz Ahmad complainant also received the injuries. It is also contended that the challan has been submitted in the trial Court. He relied on judgment reported as "PLD 1999 SC 203" and argued that any opinion formed by this Court will prejudice the case of any of the parties and the superior Courts are reluctant in deciding the bail application on merits.
5. Learned counsel for the State also opposed the bail application on the usual ground of naming the petitioner in the F.I.R. and ascribing of the specific role.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The complainant in his statement under section 154, Cr.P.C. has not explained the injuries on the person of Nazir Ahmad co accused who received two blunt injuries on the stomach but in the supplementary statement made, it has been proved that Nazir Ahmad received the injuries during the occurrence. The injury attributed to the present petitioner has been found as an exit wound. There is a contradiction in the medical evidence and the ocular account to the extent of the involvement of the petitioner in this case. The petitioner has also been found innocent during the investigation and the discharge report was prepared though the learned Ilaqa Magistrate did not agree with the same and directed for the submission of the challan to the trial Court. The submission of challan is not a bar for the grant of bail to] an accused person if otherwise he has succeeded in making out a case of further' inquiry. Due to the above reasons I am of the view that the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for further inquiry and 11 falls within the purview of subsections (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In "PLD 1994 SC 65" ii has been held that the bail cannot be refused to an accused person merely on the ground that the challan has been submitted. I am fortified by the view taken by the august Supreme Court in "PLD 1972 SC 257" that benefit of doubt if arises at any stage must go to the accused party.
7. For the foregoing reasons this petition is accepted and the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
N.H.Q./G-120.L Bail allowed.