MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus State
This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in respect of case F.I.R. No.416 of 2002 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Lodhran. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail in circumstances where he was allegedly involved on the basis of suspicion, not named in a related private complaint or subsequent petition for special leave to appeal, and declared innocent during the investigation. The Lahore High Court allowed the petition, holding that the absence of identification by prosecution witnesses and the omission of the petitioner's name from the private complaint and related proceedings made his case one of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The key principle laid down is that involvement based purely on suspicion, coupled with omissions in private complaints filed by injured parties regarding the same occurrence, constitutes sufficient grounds for granting post-arrest bail.
- Whether the omission of an accused's name in a private complaint regarding the same occurrence makes the case one of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Does involvement based merely on suspicion entitle an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused declared innocent during the investigation entitled to bail when co-accused have already been granted bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.416 of 2002 dated 2-11-2002 registered under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Sadar Lodhran.
2. Briefly the allegation as per prosecution story is that he on 2-11-2002 at mid night at 12 O'Clock, the complainant along with his sons Zahoor Ahmad and Manzoor Ahmad attracted towards the spot on hearing the noise of his grandson Nazir Ahmad where they in the light of lantern saw that Muhammad Sharif petitioner along with his unknown co-accused armed with different fire-arms was threatening said Nazir Ahmad. On his raising alarm one of the culprits fired hitting Zahoor Ahmad who died at the spot. Another accused injured Manzoor Ahmad with his fire-arm. The complainant stepped ahead who was also caused butt blow on his head. Mst. Sakina also reached there she was also injured by accused persons. On reaching alarm, the P.Ws. attracted towards the spot and the accused fled away.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been involved in this case. That the complainant failed to produce evidence against the petitioner and ultimately the petitioner was declared innocent during the course of investigation. That the co-accused namely Bilal has been granted bail by the learned trial Court hence the petitioner is also entitled for the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed-the bail petition.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly none of the accused involved in the case was identified by the P.Ws. and the petitioner has been involved only due to suspicion. One of the injured namely Manzoor filed a private complaint regarding the same occurrence and even he did not nominate the petitioner as accused. Said complaint was dismissed whereafter complainant filed P.S.L.A. and even then petitioner was not named as accused in P.S.L.A. This fact itself is a sound ground to make petitioner's case that of further inquiry. Accordingly this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of, learned trial Court.
N.H.Q./M-998/L Bail allowed.