MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus State
This criminal petition concerns a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, Muhammad Saleem, who was charged under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an FIR registered in Faisalabad. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific allegations and the findings of the investigation. The Court observed that the occurrence took place at night, and the petitioner was allegedly empty-handed, with the only attributed role being that of catching hold of the deceased to facilitate a co-accused. Crucially, the final investigation report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 concluded that the petitioner was not present at the scene during the crime. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was allowed, and bail was granted, establishing the principle that where investigation reports contradict the prosecution's initial allegations regarding presence at the crime scene, a case for further inquiry is made out.
- Does an investigation report concluding the accused was not present at the crime scene constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's allegation of facilitating a co-accused appears prima facie unbelievable?
- Can bail be granted when the petitioner is empty-handed and the investigation report contradicts the FIR regarding the petitioner's presence at the scene?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- Through this petition Muhammad Saleem petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.795 registered at Police Station, Ghulam Muhammad Abad, District Faisalabad on 14-8-2006 in respect of an offence under section 302, P.P.C. read with sections 34, P.P.C.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by me that the occurrence in this case had taken place during a night and even according to the F.I.R. itself the petitioner was empty-handed during the same. Admittedly the petitioner had not caused any injury to any person during the alleged occurrence and the only role attributed to the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that of catching hold of the deceased and facilitating his co-accused namely Shafqat to fire at the deceased which allegation prima facie, appears to be unbelievable. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and a perusal of the report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. shows that the investigating agency had found that the petitioner was not present at the scene of the crime at the relevant time and he had arrived at the spot after the main incident was already over. The petitioner is languishing in judicial lock-up and, thus, his continued custody in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-699/L Bail granted.