MUHAMMAD KHALID Versus State
The petitioner, Muhammad Khalid, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965, regarding a criminal assault resulting in a death. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific allegations in the F.I.R. and the findings of the investigation. The Court observed that the F.I.R. failed to specify any weapon carried by the petitioner, and investigation findings indicated he was empty-handed and his actions did not result in any injury to the deceased or prosecution witnesses. 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 Court affirmed that the commencement of trial does not override the statutory right to bail when a case for further inquiry is made out. Consequently, the Court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.
- Does the commencement of a trial automatically preclude the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the F.I.R. fails to attribute a specific weapon or overt act to them?
- Does the finding that an accused was empty-handed during an alleged criminal assault constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 13, Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.-- -Muhammad Khalid, petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.155, registered at Police Station, New Multan, on 13-3-2005, for offences under sections 302/148/149/109, P.P.C., read with section-13 of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965).
2. According to F.I.R., the petitioner and six other, accused, who were armed with deadly weapons launched criminal assault upon the complainant party, while they were going back to their houses on 13-3-2005 at 8-50 p.m. The fire caused by Muhammad Ayub, accused by Repeater Gun hit Akbar Ali, brother of the complainant, who died at the spot. However, according to F.I.R. Ayub also lost his life due to firing caused by rest of the accused.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that it has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. as to what weapon the petitioner was carrying while the weapons carried by Muhammad Ayub (deceased accused), Abdul Majeed, Ali, Ismail and Khan Haider, accused have been specified. Undeniably, the fire caused by the petitioner did not hit either to the deceased or any of the P.Ws. during investigation no recovery was effected from him rather according to findings of the police the petitioner was empty-handed. In, these circumstances, the case of the petitioner falls within the provisions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. and needs further probe and inquiry. I am conscious of the fact that the trial has commenced but the rule of propriety cannot defeat the statutory right of the petitioner. Reliance is placed upon the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafiq and others PLD 1989 SC 585. Thus, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rupees One Lac, with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-650/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- IBRAHIM vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 983