MUHAMMAD AMJAD Versus State
This petition for post-arrest bail concerns an accused charged with offences under sections 337-F(iii), 337-L(ii), 337-F(v), and 452/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that two separate police investigations declared him innocent and his co-accused had already been granted bail. The Court held that while police investigation reports are not binding, they cannot be disregarded when based on tangible material. Finding that the petitioner was declared innocent in multiple investigations, that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the petitioner's co-accused had already been granted bail, the Court applied the rule of consistency. The Court further noted that the investigation was complete and the petitioner's case required further inquiry. Consequently, the bail petition was allowed, establishing that in non-prohibitory offences, bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, particularly when the accused's involvement remains questionable.
- Does the rule of consistency apply when co-accused have already been granted bail?
- Is the opinion of an investigating officer declaring an accused innocent binding upon the court?
- Are offences punishable with up to five years' imprisonment subject to the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does a case qualify as one of further inquiry for the purpose of granting bail?
- Section 337-F(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
TARIQ SHAMIM, J .---Through this petition, the petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No. 167, dated 6-5-2006 for offences under sections 337-F(iii), 337-L(ii), 337-F(v), 452/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Sabz Pir District Sialkot.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with two others trespassed into the house of the complainant and caused injuries to her.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in two investigations one conducted by the S.I., and the other conducted by the S.P. (Investigation), the petitioner and his co-accused Baqir Ali were declared innocent as according to the Investigating Officers both of them were not present at the place of occurrence; that there was likelihood of the injuries received by the complainant a result of fall; that the other co-accused of the petitioner who were allegedly armed with Chhuri and brick and had caused injuries to the complainant had been granted bail after arrest by the learned trial Court; that the challan had been submitted and the petitioner was no more required by the police for any further investigation who was behind the bars for the last about 4 months. As such, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Two investigations in the case were conducted, one by S.I. and the other by S.P. (Investigation), and in both the investigations the petitioner and his father namely Baqir Ali co-accused were declared innocent. Although the opinion of the Investigating Officer is not binding on the Court, nevertheless, if the same is based on tangible material as in the instant case, it cannot be lightly brushed aside and has to be considered. Further, the record reveals that it was opined by the Investigating Officer that the petitioner and his co-accused were not present at the place of occurrence and that there was a possibility of the complainant receiving injuries on account of a fall. The other two co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court and keeping in view the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to the same 'concession. The offences mentioned in the F.I.R. are punishable with up to 5 years' imprisonment which do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such-like cases the grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception. The Investigation is complete, the challan has been submitted in the Court and the petitioner is no more required for any further investigation, who is behind the bars for the last about 4 months. Tentative assessment of the evidence on the record reveals that the case of the petitioner is one of further enquiry as there is presently not enough evidence available on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offences alleged against him.
7. Resultantly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
H.B.T./M-217/L Bail granted.