MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus THE STATE
This criminal bail application concerns the confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail for two applicants accused of offences under Sections 324, 337-H(ii), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicants met the criteria for pre-arrest bail, considering the significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR), the nature of the allegations involving ineffective firing, and the existence of a pre-existing civil property dispute between the parties. The Court held that the 15-day delay in registering the FIR, the specific role attributed to the applicants, and the presence of mala fide intent arising from the ongoing civil litigation justified the confirmation of bail. The Court rejected the complainant's argument regarding non-cooperation with the investigation, noting the absence of evidence that the applicants were summoned for interrogation. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that the circumstances indicated the applicants' involvement was driven by ulterior motives related to the civil dispute.
- Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR, in the absence of a plausible explanation, constitute a ground for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed where the allegation against the accused is limited to ineffective firing?
- Is the existence of a pending civil litigation between the parties a relevant factor in determining mala fide intent for the purpose of pre-arrest bail?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. By this order, I intend to dispose of Criminal Bail Application No. 20 of 2001 filed on behalf of the applicants namely Muhammad Ramzan and Bashir Ahmad both by caste Gopang, arising out of the Crime F.I.R. No. 283 of 2000, Police Station Kambar for offences under sections 324, 337‑H(ii), 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. The applicants were granted interim pre‑arrest bail by this Court vide order, dated 15‑1‑2001 which is now subject to confirmation. The bail before arrest application filed on behalf of the applicants was dismissed by the Incharge Sessions Judge, Larkana vide order, dated 11‑1‑2001.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as enunciated in the F.I.R. are that on 17‑12‑2001 complainant Haji Roshan Ali Kalal appeared at Police Station Kambar and lodged F.I.R. alleging that on 2‑12‑2000 in the morning he had gone to his lands in order to look after when at about 11‑00 a.m. (1) Bashir Ahmad,. (2) Muhammad Ramzan, (3) Khalid and (4) Shabir all Gopang by caste and an unidentified person emerged there, out of them Bashir Ahmed and Muhammad Ramzan were duly armed with guns whereas all the rest were armed with hatchets. For unidentified it has been claimed by the complainant party that he could be identified when brought before them. It is further alleged that on his arrival Bashir Ahmed raised a Lalkara that prior to this they have tiled false case against them and that they will not be spared. Saying so Bashir Ahmed and Muhammad Ramzan both fired from their respective guns on the complainant who fell down on the ground with the result the shot went ineffective. In the meanwhile P.Ws. Shahid Hussain and Mumtaz Ali came running and the accused looking at them decamped from the scene of offence by making aimless tiring. On the arrival of the witness the facts were apprised to them. The motive disclosed in the F.I.R. appears to be a dispute on landed property viz. S. No. 720 measuring about (7‑9) acres. It has been alleged by the learned counsel for the applicant that involvement of the present applicants is due to mala fide and ulterior reasons on the part of police at the instance of complainant party and as such the counsel prays for confirmation of bail:
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that incident is said to have taken place on 2‑12‑2000 at 11‑00 a.m. whereas the F.I.R. was registered on 17‑12‑2000 at 12‑00 a.m. i.e. with the delay of 15 days. It has been further argued that only role attributed to the applicants is that of ineffective tiring. Besides this it has also been argued that it is a case where the mala tides are involved inasmuch as there is a growing dispute on the landed property on S. No. 720 situated in Deh Kambar for which the case of civil litigation is pending in the Court of learned IInd Senior Civil Judge, ' Larkana being F.C. Suit No. 42 of 2000 against the cousins and witnesses of the complainant party.
4. Learned counsel for the State has conceded to the arguments of counsel for applicants for confirmation of bail, however, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the confirmation on the ground that the applicants after grant of interim bail before arrest had not cooperated with the investigation. The argument of the learned counsel for the complainant is repelled for the reason that on the querry from the Court whether the applicants after the grant of interim bail by this Court were summoned by Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation, to which he had no answer.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. Admittedly, it is a case where F.I.R. is belated for 15 days, only role attributed to the applicant is to the extent of ineffective tiring. The parties are roped in a civil dispute and the involvement of the applicants is due to mala tide and ulterior reasons. For A the foregoing reasons, the interim bail before arrest granted earlier to the applicants named above is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. Criminal Bail Application No. 20 of 2001 stands disposed of in the terms stated hereinabove.
6. N.H.Q./M‑134/K Pre‑arrest bail allowed.