MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus State
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner, Muhammad Ashraf, who is accused of involvement in a criminal case involving murder and attempted murder. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite being named in the F.I.R. with a specific role of causing a firearm injury, and whether the police's opinion regarding the complainant party being the aggressor necessitates bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The Court reasoned that the petitioner is prima facie connected to the offence, which falls within the prohibitory clause of the relevant criminal procedure statute. Crucially, the Court established that police opinions regarding the aggressor are not binding on the judiciary. Furthermore, the Court distinguished the petitioner's case from co-accused who were granted bail, noting that the petitioner had a specific, effective role supported by medical evidence and weapon recovery, whereas the co-accused were only attributed ineffective firing. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
- Is the opinion of the police regarding which party was the aggressor in a criminal case binding on the court during bail proceedings?
- Does the attribution of a specific, effective role in a crime involving the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 preclude the grant of bail?
- Can a petitioner claim parity with co-accused who were granted bail when the petitioner's role in the offence is distinct and more severe?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J .---The petitioner has applied for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.210 registered on 2-10-2005 under sections 302, 324, 109, 148, 149, P.P.C. at Police Station, Mandi Faizabad, District Nankana Sohib.
2. The aforesaid F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner and other co-accused at the instance of the complainant Abdul Rasheed, on the allegation that on 2-10-2005 after the sun set, the complainant allegedly was going to his house after offering prayer. Akbar Ali, Afzal and Abdul Hameed were going ahead of him at some distance. When he reached near the door of his house then suddenly the co-accused of the petitioner armed with deadly weapon came out. Arif raised Lakara that Akbar etc. be put to death whereupon Matllob, co-accused, fired with his gun upon Akbar Ali, which hit on his abdomen. Then Yaqoob accused with his gun fired a shot which landed Afzal on his right shoulder. Taj, co-accused, also fired which hit Afzal on his face and neck. The petitioner fired with his rifle which landed on Abdul Hameed at his back. Then Mushtaq, co-accused gave butt blow upon the head of the complainant. The accused left the place of occurrence while making indiscriminate tiring. The occurrence was witnessed by the P.Ws. and the injured were taken to the Rural Health Centre, Rehanwala, Tehsil and District Nankana Sahib wherefrom they were referred to the Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Akbar Ali injured succumbed to the injuries while en route. The motive behind this occurrence is dispute over a piece of land between the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that actually the complainant party was the aggressor, who had started tiring on the accused party; that the DSP and the local police had found that the complainant party was the aggressor and the case of the petitioner is covered by section 497 of the Cr.P.C. and that Riaz and Asghar Ali co-accused were admitted to bail by this Court and the petitioner is also entitled to the same treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the bail application. She has contended that four accused are still fugitive from justice. Further contended that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing injury with fire-arm on the back of Abdul Hameed P.W. and the complainant party had made statement against the petitioner for his involvement in the present case.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. During the investigation, the version of the petitioner and his co-accused was that the complainant party was the aggressor and they had started firing first and the accused party had acted in exercise of their right of self-defence. Admittedly none from the accused side had received any injury. Though the local police and the DSP gave their opinion that the other party was the aggressor, yet the opinion of the police is not binding on the Courts. Challan has already been submitted in the Court on 6-12-2005 and the petitioner is attributed specific role of firing on the person of Abdul Hameed on his back which is also supported by the medical evidence and the injured P.W. The recovery of weapon has also been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is prima facie connected with the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner's case is not at par with the case of the co-accused who have already been admitted to bail by this Court as they were only attributed ineffective firing. In such situation, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage and this application is dismissed.
H.B.T./M-651/L Bail Refused.