ANSAR ALI Versus THE STATE
The petitioner, Ansar Ali, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged Qatl-e-Amd of the complainant's son. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, armed with a .222 bore rifle, fired at the deceased. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, citing a material conflict between the F.I.R. and a subsequent private complaint filed by the complainant regarding his specific role and the nature of the injuries attributed to him. The court examined the record and observed that while the F.I.R. specified the exact location of the injury caused by the petitioner, the private complaint omitted this detail, creating a discrepancy in the prosecution's narrative. The court held that this conflict necessitated further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, noting the petitioner's status as a previous non-convict and the delay in the commencement of the trial, the court granted bail, establishing that material contradictions between an F.I.R. and a private complaint regarding an accused's role can constitute grounds for further inquiry and the grant of bail.
- Does a material conflict between the narration in an F.I.R. and a subsequent private complaint regarding the role of an accused warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the absence of the commencement of a trial after one year of incarceration be considered a ground for granting bail in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Ansar Ali, the petitioner has sought for post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.375, dated 14‑8‑2002 under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution case as per F.I.R. are that on 14‑8‑2002 at about Isha prayer time Ansar Ali (petitioner) armed with rifle .222 bore, Akhtar with .12 bore gun, Amanat with .12 bore gun and Ahmad Ali with Sota in furtherance of their common intention had committed the Qatl‑e‑Amd of complainant's son Shan.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that on 21-10-2001 Muhammad Saeed, the son‑in‑law of Ahmad Ali accused was murdered case F.I.R. No.559 of 2001 under section 302/34, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif against Shah Muhammad her husband and others. They (accused) on account of grudge over the same have committed the Qatl‑e‑Amd of her said son.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in that according to the F.I.R. he has fired straight shot with .222 bore rifle at the deceased hitting on his upper side of knee of the left thigh while in the private complaint brought by her (complainant) in respect of that occurrence, she did not mention so and rather only that much that he did fire with rifle at the deceased and so there is conflict in the narration of the F.I.R. and the story in her complaint as regards his role and the same brings his case within the purview of further inquiry into his guilt; that he is behind the bars for the last about one year and so far his trial has not commenced even and that he is previous non‑convict.
5. Conversely, the learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R. that according to the same he has fired straight shot with .222 bore rifle at the deceased hitting on the upper side of his knee of the left thigh and that the offence is covered under the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
7. According to the F.I.R., he has fired straight shot with .222 bore rifle at Shan deceased hitting on his upper side of knee of the left thigh.
8. The complainant has admittedly brought private complaint under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. against Ahmad Ali and others regarding the same occurrence as is mentioned in the instant F.I.R. In para. 3 of the private complaint, she as regards his role has mentioned as under:‑‑
9. While as is obvious from the above position that in the F.I.R. that fire‑arm injury on deceased's such part of the body is attributed to him (petitioner). The above quoted words in her complaint show that she had not mentioned therein that on which part of the deceased's body had hit his that fire. While it is interesting to note that she in the same para. of her said complaint had attributed fire shot with .12 bore gun at the deceased to his co‑accused Muhammad Akhtar hitting on front side of his left thigh, which went through and through. The same is reproduced hereinbelow verbatim for facility of reference:‑‑
She has owned to have brought private complaint against, the accused nominated in the F.I.R.
10. So there is apparent conflict in the narration of the F.I.R. as regards his role in the commission of the alleged offence and the private complaint brought by her as indicated above.
11. The same as necessitated further inquiry into his guilt. Hence, his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
12. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last about one year and. so far his trial has not commenced even. He is also stated to be previous non‑convict.
13. In these circumstances, I find him entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./A-836/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL MAJEED WPC vs THE STATE 2006 P Cr. L J 818