MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus State
The petitioner Muhammad Saleem sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.38 registered at Police Station Sadar, Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh, for offences under sections 148, 302, 149, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i) and 337-L(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to further inquiry into his guilt under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged with noticeable delay, the petitioner was not attributed any specific injury to the deceased, generalized allegations were made against him without direct connection to the motive, no recoveries were made from him, and the initial investigating officer opined he was not present at the spot. The court held that the case called for further inquiry under section 497(2), Cr.P.C., as the subsequent investigating officer improperly shifted the burden of proof to the accused. Consequently, the petition was allowed and bail was granted to the petitioner.
- Whether an accused is entitled to post-arrest bail when allegations in the F.I.R. are couched in generalized terms without specific attribution of injuries to the deceased?
- Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the initial investigating officer finds the accused not present at the spot?
- Can an investigating officer require the accused to establish their innocence during investigation?
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition Muhammad Saleem petitioner has sought post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.38 registered at Police Station Sadar, Gojra, District Toba Tek Singh on, 7‑2‑2004 for offences under sections 148/302/149, P.P.C . During the investigation sections 337‑ A( i), 337‑A(ii), 337‑F(i) and 337‑L(2), P.P.C. were added to the F.I.R.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the F.I.R. in this case had been lodged with a noticeable delay. Admittedly the petitioner had not caused any injury to, Muhammad Arshad deceased. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is that he had, collectively with his co‑accused, caused unspecified injuries to Muhammad Afzal P.W. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is couched in generalized terms without any specific attribution. Apparently the petitioner was not directly connected with the motive setup in the F.I.R. It is not disputed that nothing had been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case. The record of investigation of this case shows that the initial Investigating Officer had recorded a categories opinion that the petitioner was not physically present at the, spot at the relevant time and he had not participated in the alleged occurrence. However, a Deputy Superintendent of Police conducting investigation of this case at a subsequently stage had recorded his finding of guilt vis‑a‑vis the petitioner only on the basis that the petitioner could not establish before him that he was not present at the spot at the relevant time. Such approach of the Deputy Superintendent of Police has been found by me to be rather curious because it appears that he had arrogated to himself the role of an adjudicator and had abandoned the role of an investigator. It is for an adjudicator to decide as to which partv has successfully established its case before him whereas it is an investigator's duty to find out the facts and the truth himself rather than requiring the parties to establish their rival claims before him. The, challan in this case has already been submitted after completion of investigation and, thus, continued custody of the petitioner in jail is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50 ,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M‑661/L Bail granted.