Pakistan Case LawAtti Ullah Versus State
This post-arrest bail petition was preferred before the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court by an accused detained in connection with cases registered under Sections 324/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The primary legal question before the Court was whether the accused was entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail on grounds of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Chief Court allowed the petition and granted bail. It was held that serious doubt existed regarding the petitioner's involvement because the FIR alleged firing with a Kalashnikov, whereas the police recovered a .30 bore pistol. Additionally, the allegation was of ineffective firing causing no injuries, the vehicle allegedly struck by bullets was not impounded by police, the roof owner from where shots were allegedly fired was not implicated, and the 66-year-old petitioner was no longer required for investigation.
- Does a contradiction between the weapon described in the FIR and the weapon recovered during investigation bring an accused's case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an allegation of ineffective firing causing no injuries entitles an accused to the concession of post-arrest bail?
- Can failure of the investigating agency to take possession of property allegedly damaged by gunfire create grounds for grant of post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
Order
Ali baig, C.J .--- Through the instant petition, Petitioner / accused who is detained in judicial lock up seeks his enlargement on bail in cases arising out of FIR bearing No.44/2024 offences under sections 324/34 P.P.C and FIR bearing No.55/2024 for offence under section 13 Arms Ordinance 20 of 1965 registered at Police Station Juglote Gilgit.
2.Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant post arrest bail petition are that the complainant namely Hidayat Ullah son of Muhammad Riaz resident of Juglote Tehsil Juglote District Gilgit had submitted a written complaint before the SHO police station Juglote Gilgit for lodging of a FIR against the present petitioner/accused and his co-accused stating therein that on 28-07-2024 at about 1300 hours the present petitioner and his co-accused have opened fires at the complainant and his nephew namely Ikram ud Din near the house of Haji Sardar situated at Juglote District Gilgit.
3.On receipt of the application/written complaint of the complainant the SHO police station Juglote has registered the FIR bearing No. 44/2024 under section 324/34 P.P.C, arrested the present petitioner/accused and during investigation the local police have also recovered a crime weapon i.e. 30 bore pistol from the present petitioner/accused on his pointation and also registered another FIR bearing No.55/2024 for the offence under section 13 A.O, 1965. After completion of the formal investigation the SHO concerned got committed the present accused/petitioner to judicial lock up at Gilgit and discharged the co-accused under section 169 Cr.P.C.
4.The accused/petitioner had filed bail application before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has dismissed the application filed by the present petitioner/accused vide order dated 11-03-2025.
5.Feeling aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned judgment/ bail order passed by the learned trial Court the present petitioner has preferred the instant bail application before this Court on the grounds detailed in the petition in hand.
6.The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submitted that the accused/petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant case with mala fide intention in league with the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that police have wrongly implicated the petitioner/accused in the instant case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner/ accused is false, fabricated, concocted and based on exaggerated view of local police. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the offence under section 324 P.P.C reflected in the FIR does not attract to the instant case. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that it is a case of ineffective firing, hence, case of the petitioner requires further inquiry. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the co-accused of the present petitioner/accused have been discharged under section 169 Cr.P.C., hence, rule of consistency fully applies to the petitioner's case and the petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no Kalashnikov has been recovered from the petitioner and the prosecution has failed to connect the accused/petitioner with the alleged crime by collecting reliable evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the fires have allegedly hit the vehicle but the vehicle has not been taken into possession by the police. The petitioner is 66 years old and is behind the bars since his arrest. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the accused/petitioner is ill and is suffering in Epilepsy and parental bone. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has relied on the following case laws:-
1. 2022 P Cr.LJ Note 61 (GB) Chief Court).
2. 2025 MLD 173 (GB Chief Court).
3. 2021 SCMR 63 (Supreme Court of Pakistan)
4. 2024 PCr.LJ 824 (GB Chief Court).
5. 2024 YLR 1823 (Supreme Appellate Court GB Gilgit)
6. 2021 MLD 907 (Peshawar)
7.On the other hand the learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and defended the impugned bail order passed by the learned trial Court by contending that the petitioner/accused is directly nominated in the promptly lodged FIR with specific role. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the offences under section 324 P.P.C is not bailable and fully attracted to the petitioner's case. The learned DAG further submitted that Prosecution witnesses link the petitioner/accused with the alleged crime. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the bail application of the petitioner/accused after correct appreciation of material available on file. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the accused/petitioner has been directly nominated in the FIR with a role of ineffective firing. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the crime weapon has been recovered on the pointation of the accused/petitioner and another FIR under section 13 A.O. 1965 has been registered against him. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that co-accused of the present petitioners has not been discharged by the police, as such rule of consistency does not apply to the case of petitioner. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that challan of the case has already been submitted in Court and trial of the case has commenced. The learned DAG and learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that the petitioner has failed to establish the grounds agitated in the petition in hand, hence, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed to meet the ends of justice.
8.I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record available on file.
9.Perusal of record reveals that the complainant who is also eye witness of the occurrence has unequivocally stated in the FIR that the present petitioner/accused and his co-accused had opened fires on the complainant with Kalashnikov but astonishingly the police have recovered 30 bore pistol from the possession of the present petitioner/accused which creates serious doubts regarding involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged occurrence. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the case of the petitioner comes within the ambit of further inquiry. Moreover, the petitioner is 66 years' old person and he is behind the bars since his arrest and he is no more required by the police for the purpose of further investigation and detention of the petitioner/accused for indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose. The petitioner has alleged that fires opened by the petitioner and his co-accused had hit the vehicle of the complainant, but police have failed to take into possession the said vehicle to establish the guilt of the accused/ petitioner. The persecution record reveals that the petitioner/ accused has been charged for ineffective firing on the complainant and his nephew namely Ikram ud Din from the rooftop of one Fareed Ullah, but no any person has received a single injury. The above named person has not been implicated in this case, whereas allegedly the fires were opened from his rooftop, hence the case of the petitioner falls under section 497 (2) Cr.P.C and he is entitled for concession of bail.
10.For what has been discussed above, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (five lac only) with two local solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. This petition along with Cr. Misc. No. 176/2025 is disposed of accordingly. File
JK/15/GB Petition allowed.
Judges on this bench
- Ali Baig372 judgments