MUHAMMAD RIAZ Versus State
This criminal petition arises out of a bail application filed by Muhammad Riaz seeking post-arrest bail in a murder case registered via an F.I.R. naming nine accused persons. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given that no specific injury or weapon recovery is attributed to him, co-accused have been declared innocent or granted bail, and his case falls within the scope of further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that since no injury was attributed to the petitioner, no weapon or relevant crime empty was recovered from him, and co-accused situated similarly were granted relief, the petitioner's case indeed warrants further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that absence of specific weapon recovery, lack of attributed injuries, and parity of treatment with co-accused support the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when no specific injury is attributed to him in the F.I.R.?
- Does the absence of weapon recovery from an accused justify granting bail under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether parity with co-accused who have been declared innocent or granted bail is a valid ground for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nine accused were named in the F.I.R., amongst them, five have been declared innocent including Zafar one of the main accused, who along with Shahid and Pervaiz caused an injury on the person of the deceased, that no weapon of offence has been recovered from the present petitioner, that he has been named as an accused in this case for the reasons that he was eye-witness against the brother of the complainant in a murder case and that case of the present petitioner of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., he was the member of unlawful assembly and he committed the murder of the deceased along with other co-accused in prosecution of their common object.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. According to the F.I.R., though the petitioner was present along with other accused but no injury to the deceased is attributed to him. One of the main accused, namely. Zafar has been allowed bail on the ground that 3/4 persons have declared innocent by the police, no recovery of weapon of offence has been effected from the petitioner, no crime empty of .7 mm rifle was recovered, only nine crime empty of .222 rifle was recovered. In my considered opinion, case of the present petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
H.B.T./M-617/L Bail granted.