SHAHZAD alias MEER Versus THE STATE
This is a criminal petition filed by Shahzad alias Meer seeking post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 95 registered under sections 324, 337-A(ii), 337-H(ii) read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Kotwali, District Gujranwala. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was attributed ineffective firing and no specific injury, is entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial. The Lahore High Court held that since no injury was ascribed to the petitioner, no crime weapon was recovered from him, and the motive was not directly linked to him, his case falls within the scope of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that ineffective firing without weapon recovery or attributed injury warrants further inquiry for bail purposes.
- Does attribution of ineffective firing without injury or weapon recovery make a case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused person entitled to post-arrest bail when no specific injury is ascribed to them during the occurrence?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Petitioner Shahzad alias Meer through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.95, dated 15-4-2003 under section 324/337-A(ii)/337-H(ii) read with section 34, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Kotwali, District Gujranwala.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that on 7-4-2003 at about 10-00 p.m. Asif alias Khoti armed with razor, Shahzad alias Meer with .30 bore pistol, Chand alias Dana with Mouser .30 bore and Nadeem alias Deemi were present in the street Choba Kali near the clinic of Dr. Chiragh. The complainant, his son Shiraz Ahmad and one Waqar Ahmad, who were on their way back to the house after closing their shop, when reached near them, Asif raised Lalkara and thereupon Chand and Shahzad alias Meer started firing with their weapons. Asif inflicted blow with razor at the left ear of Shiraz Ahmad, who was seriously wounded and due to the same fell on the ground. On their alarm many persons were attracted to the spot and on seeing them, they (accused) fled away while firing in the air.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that about two days prior to the same Nadim Butt etc. had quarrelled with Shiraz Ahmad and in the same they had exchanged abuses but the matter vas hushed up. On grudge over the same the accused have committed the above act.
4. It has been contended on his behalf that he has been falsely roped in; that no injury to the injured is ascribed to him; that mere role of ineffective firing is attributed to him; that no motive is directly ascribed to him; that no crime weapon was recovered from him; that all such facts make his case as one of further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars for the last more than five months and is previous non-convict.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the same on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that he has created terror by firing at the spot and so has facilitated his co-accused in fleeing away from the spot after causing injury to injured Sheraz Ahmad and so is sufficiently connected with the crime; and that the challan stands submitted in the Court.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
7. The fact remains that no injury to injured Shahzad is ascribed to him. He has been ascribed ineffective firing at the scene of occurrence. The motive is also not directly ascribed to him. Admittedly, no crime weapon was recovered from him. It is, therefore, yet to be seen that if he can ultimately be held for the alleged offence or not. His case, therefore, is covered subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry into his guilt.
8. He is stated to be behind the bars for the last more than five months and a previous non-convict. The same has not been controverted by the other side. The challan stands submitted in the Court.
9. In these circumstances, I find that the case for his enlargement, on bail has been made out. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate/trial Court.
H.F.T./S-781/L Bail granted.
Cited by 1 case
- SAMAD BALOCH vs THE STATE 2010 MLD 344