MUHAMMAD ANWAR Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Anwar, who was charged alongside co-accused in an F.I.R. involving murder and other offences under the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have committed ineffective firing and was not connected to the motive, was entitled to bail despite the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the specific act of firing attributed to him was ineffective, no crime weapon was recovered from him, and he was not linked to the motive. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petitioner’s involvement required further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that where the role attributed to an accused is limited to ineffective firing, no weapon is recovered, and there is no connection to the motive, the case warrants further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant of post-arrest bail even in offences falling within the prohibitory clause.
- Does the allegation of ineffective firing by an accused, in the absence of weapon recovery and motive, constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Can bail be granted in a case involving offences under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the specific role of the accused is limited?
- Is the non-recovery of a crime weapon a relevant factor in determining the entitlement to post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Heard.
2. Muhammad, Anwar son of Liaqat Ali, caste Malik, resident of Sahari Hithiar, Tehsil and District Kasur, petitioner, has applied for his post‑arrest bail in the case bearing F.I.R. No.36 of 2003, dated 28‑1‑2003 which stands registered against the petitioner and his companions under sections 302/342/148/149/337‑A(1), 337‑L(2), P.P.C, with Police Station Sadar Kasur.
3. The allegation against the petitioner was that at 3‑00 p.m. on 28‑1‑2003 in the area of Village Sahari Hathiar when Muhammad Latif complainant and his father Muhammad Sharif, Ishfaq Machi, Feroze Din and Mukhtar Ali after saying their prayers in the mosque of the village reached the Mosque Chowk, the petitioner while armed with .12 bore <‑un and his co‑accused Muhammad Akbar armed with pistol, Liaqat Ali armed with gun, Sarwar, Anwar and Javaid also armed with .12 bore guns and Rasheed with Sota in furtherance of their common intention came in the street from the house of Muhammad Akbar and on raising lalkara by Liaquat Ali, Muhammad Akbar fired with his pistol which hit on right side of chest of Muhammad Shafi who yielded to the injuries at the spot, while Muhammad Ashfaq witness was injured with the Sota blow given by Rasheed Ahmad co‑accused and, thereafter, Liaquat Ali, etc. had been firing with their weapons at the spot. The motive behind the occurrence was that about seven or eight days earlier Liaquat Ali co- accused had cut indecent joke to a lady belonging to Muhammad Ishfaq witness on which the deceased and Ishfaq Machhi had given beating to Liaquat Ali. So at the instance of Muhammad Latif the abovesaid case was registered.
4. While refusing bail to the petitioner and his co‑accused Muhammad Javaid, the learned Judge observed that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and that the allegation against them is that of firing at the spot and during investigation they have been found guilty and mere non‑recovery of the crime weapon and registration of cross‑version, cannot be considered sufficient to grant post‑arrest bail to the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that at the most the allegation against the petitioner is that of ineffective firing at the spot; that no crime empty was taken into possession, even during investigation no crime weapon was recovered from the petitioner; that the injuries suffered by Muhammad Ishfaq witness were attributed to Rasheed Ahmad co‑accused who has been allowed hail by this Court vide order dated 12‑6‑2003, that cross‑version has also been brought on the record and it is yet to be resolved as to who was aggressor at the spot and that the question with regard to common intention or common object has to be thrashed out at the stage of trial, therefore, in view of above circumstances it is a case of further inquiry, which have been opposed by the learned State counsel who submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. therefore, it is not a fit case for bail.
6. The contents of the F.I.R. would reveal that the act of ineffective firing attributed to the petitioner and others started when the co‑accused Muhammad Akbar had already, fired at the deceased and even the witness was injured which means that had there been any intention to' kill, the petitioner could fire straight towards the members of the complainant party. No crime weapon could be recovered from the petitioner. Petitioner is not connected with the motive. He is no more required by the police for further investigation. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, if is a case of further inquiry to the extent of this petitioner.
Consequently, petitioner is al owe bail subject to his furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.200,000 (rupees two lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge Kasur.
Petition is hereby accepted.
H.B.T./M‑2331/L Bail granted.