ZAFAR IQBAL Versus State
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Zafar Iqbal, who was accused in an F.I.R. registered under sections 324, 334, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the allegations of ineffective firing and the absence of firearm injuries on the complainant, despite the offense 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 while the petitioner was allegedly armed with a pistol, no firearm injuries were sustained by the complainant. The Court emphasized that the mere naming of a person in an F.I.R. without a specific, substantiated role is insufficient to prima facie connect them to the crime, and observed a societal tendency to falsely implicate relatives. Consequently, the Court found the case fell under the scope of further inquiry pursuant to section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and granted bail to the petitioner.
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the F.I.R. alleges the use of a firearm but no corresponding firearm injury is found on the victim?
- Does the mere mention of an accused's name in an F.I.R. without a specific role suffice to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of bail?
- When does a criminal case qualify for bail under the category of further inquiry pursuant to section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 334, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition under section 497, Cr.P.C. Zafar Iqbal petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No.404 dated 24-8-2004, registered under sections 324/334/34, P.P.C. at Police Station City District Layyah on the statement of Mujahid Hussain.
2. The prosecution story as per the F.I.R. is that complainant is constable in the police department and on the day of occurrence at about 9-30 a.m., Ijaz Ahmad his maternal cousin came to the house of the complainant and asked him that his sister namely Mst. Safia Bibi wife of Tariq Sajjad was calling him and when the complainant along with Ijaz Ahmad reached the house of his sister, Zafar Iqbal petitioner armed with pistol and his co-accused Tariq Sajjad, Muhammad Ismail armed with hatchet appeared there and asked the complainant to come into the house. It is also stated in the F.I.R. that red chillies were poured into the eyes of the complainant while the petitioner fired thrice but all the fires remained ineffective and then the accused caused number of injuries with `butt' of the pistol on the eyes of the complainant. All the accused Tariq Sajjad, Muhammad Ismail and Ijaz Ahmad caused injuries at both the eyes and hand of the complainant. Hence, this case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the petitioner was armed with pistol yet no fire-arm injury was received by the complainant. It is further contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the offence under section 324, P.P.C. is not made out against him. It is next contended that the other injuries on the right hand and on the right eyebrow are not found by the doctor, therefore, the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry and he is entitled to the grant of bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application on the ground that the petitioner has facilitated the co-accused in the commission of the crime and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Though the petitioner was stated to be armed with pistol yet there is no fire-arm injury on the person of the complainant and he was only alleged to have made ineffective firing. Even otherwise, it is generally noticed that there is tendency in the society for false implication of the near relatives of the main accused by widening the net and mere mentioning of a name of the person in the. F.I.R. without any role is not sufficient to prima facie connect him with the commission of the crime. In the above circumstances, I find it a fit case for grant of bail being covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. to the extent of the involvement of the petitioner. Hence, this application is accepted and the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
N.H.Q./Z-101/L Bail allowed.