NAZIR AHMAD Versus State
This matter arises from two criminal miscellaneous petitions seeking post-arrest bail filed by Nazir Ahmad and Muhammad Ramzan in a case involving murder and hurt committed within court premises. The core legal question is whether the petitioners, who were named in the First Information Report as members of an unlawful assembly but alleged to be empty-handed with no specific overt acts attributed to them, are entitled to post-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioners were named in the First Information Report, were part of an unlawful assembly during a fatal occurrence, and the offenses fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, no case for bail is made out, and the police report under Section 173 is not binding on the court. The key principle laid down is that members of an unlawful assembly involved in a heinous crime falling within the prohibitory clause are generally not entitled to bail merely because they were allegedly empty-handed or played no specific overt act.
- Whether an accused named as a member of an unlawful assembly in a murder case is entitled to post-arrest bail merely because he was empty-handed?
- Is a police report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 binding on the High Court while deciding a bail petition?
- Does an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the grant of bail under the facts and circumstances of an unlawful assembly?
- Section 337-A(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8825-B-2005 titled as Nazir Ahmad v. State and Criminal Miscellaneous No.8923-B-2005 tilted as Muhammad Ramzan v. State.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for Nazir Ahmad petitioner that petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased, that simple injury under section 337-A(i), L-(ii) is attributed to the petitioner, that it will be seen at the time of trial that the petitioner was member of unlawful assembly that according to investigation, though petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but was empty-handed.
3. Learned counsel for Ramzan petitioner submits that according to report under section 173, Cr.P.C. though he was present at the spot but was empty-handed and he ran away from the spot; that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner and that case of petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection 2 of section 497, Cr.P.C.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that petitioners along with their co-accused came at the spot and they committed the offence; that they have been found guilty aad have been placed in Column No.3 of the challan and that the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case two persons namely Anwar Ali and Faryad Ali were murdered while Akhtar Ali was injured in the Court premises. The petitioners are named in the F.I.R. They were member of unlawful assembly. The complainant was injured during the occurrence and he was medically examined. As far as report under section 173, Cr.P.C. is concerned, petitioner Ramzan was present at the spot and was empty-handed, this finding is not binding upon this Court. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. No case for bail is made out. Both these petitions stand dismissed.
H.B.T./N-110/L Bail Refused.