AZHAR Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Azhar, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with an F.I.R. registered in 2006. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the prosecution's allegation that he fired a shot, albeit one that caused no injury, and the recovery of a rifle from his possession. The High Court observed that while the petitioner was named in the F.I.R., the prosecution failed to recover any empty casings from the crime scene to corroborate the use of the recovered rifle. The Court held that without matching empty casings to the weapon, the recovery lacked sufficient corroborative value at the pre-trial stage. Consequently, the Court determined that the case against the petitioner fell within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was accepted, and the accused was admitted to post-arrest bail, emphasizing that the evidentiary value of the recovery remains a matter for trial.
- Does the recovery of a weapon without the recovery of matching empty casings from the crime scene constitute sufficient corroborative evidence to deny bail?
- When does a criminal case fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to post-arrest bail if the prosecution fails to establish a direct link between the recovered weapon and the alleged offense at the bail stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.-- Through this petition Azhar petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.609 registered at Police Station Bhalwal, District Sargodha on 6-9-2006 for offences under section 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in this case on account of mala fide of the complainant as well as connivance with the local police. According to the F.I.R. the petitioner has not caused any injury to the deceased or P.W. and the evidence collected by the prosecution during the investigation is also not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of offences alleged against him.
3. On the other hand learned D.P.G. submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and has been ascribed with specific role. According to the F.I.R. he made fire which could not achieve his aim. Though he has not caused any injury to the deceased but keeping in view his act and participation in the occurrence he is not entitled to be released on post-arrest bail by this Court. The offences also fall within the prohibitory clause.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it is noticed that the allegation against the petitioner is that he fired but the same did not hit to anyone. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up since 30-5-2007 but his trial has not commenced so far. Javed Khalid, A.S-I. present in the Court after consulting the record could not explain whether any empty was recovered from the place of occurrence or not. He states that only rifle was recovered from the accused during the investigation of this case. I am afraid that in absence of any empty from the place of occurrence the recovery of rifle in this case does not possess any corroborative value because without matching the empty with the rifle it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the recovered rifle is the one which has been used in the occurrence. Moreover it would be seen at the time of trial whether the recovered rifle is proper corroborative piece of evidence against the petitioner or not. All these facts render the case against the petitioner to be one of further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./A-35/L Bail granted.