M. ASHRAFUDDIN vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court upon an application under Section 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by Mohammad Ashraf-ud-Din and Saba Ali, who sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Nazir. The core legal question concerns whether bail should be granted in a case involving cross-versions where the accused persons sustained severe injuries during the incident. The Court held that there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioners were not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and that the matter fell within the purview of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that where cross-versions and severe injuries sustained by the accused render the matter one requiring further inquiry into their guilt, the case is appropriately covered under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether bail can be granted under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case involving cross-versions and severe injuries to the accused?
- Does the existence of a counter case and injuries sustained by the accused constitute reasonable grounds for believing they are not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' This is an application under section 497/498, Cr. P. C. By Mohammad Ashraf-ud-Din and Saha All for grant of bail. They are accused for an offence under section 302/34, P. P. C. For the murder of Muhammad Nazir. The allegation against the petitioners briefly is that both of them gave knife blows to Muhammad Nazir deceased when he was proceeding to his house along with his brother.
Abdur Razzaq complainant. It is stated in the F. I. R. That Muhammad Nazir deceased also gave a chhuri blow to Muhammad Ashraf-ud-Din petitioner in self-defence.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred me to the final report of the case prepared by the Investigating Officer under section 173, Cr. P. C. It is mentioned therein that he had found the accused (the petitioners in the present case) in the hospital in an injured condition. Muhammad Ashraf-ud-Din petitioner was so severely injured that the Investigating Officer arranged for recording his dying declaration and on that statement a counter case under section 307, P. P. C.
Was registered against the members of the complainant party with regard to which a separate challan was to be submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits further that it is evident that the prosecution story as given in the F. I. R., is false because both the accused persons who were said to have attacked Muhammad Nazir are themselves severely injured. The skull of Saba All petitioner was found -to be fractured while Muhammad Ashraf-ud-Din petitioner, as already mentioned, was in delicate condition when the Investigating Officer reached the hospital.
Their counsel submits that it is a case of cross-versions, which requires further investigation and is, therefore, covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr. P. C.
3. The learned State counsel is absent. There is no one to oppose the application. Without discussing the merits of the case and expressing any view which may prejudice the Courts below I feel that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners are not guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Moreover, the case as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is covered by subsection (2) of section 497. Cr. P. C. The petitioners are, therefore, released on bail in the sum of Rs, 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner Duty Magistrate, Rawalpindi.
Cited by 10 cases
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus THE STATE 2004 MLD 993
- MANTHAR vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 2027
- SARDAR ALI vs MUHAMMAD DIN Alias JUBY And 3 Other 1996 MLD 80
- SARDAR ALI vs MUHAMMAD DIN alias JUBY and 3 others 1996 MLD 80
- BASHARAT ALI and another vs THE STATE 1993 MLD 159
- MUHAMMAD ASGHAR KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE- 1986 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 5
- MUHAMMAD REHMAN Versus STATE 1983 PCRLJ 841
- SHERAL AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE 1984 P Cr. L J 3053
- PINIO vs THE STATE-Opponent 1981 P Cr. L J 1007
- ALLAH WASAYA AND 2 OTHERS vs THE STATE 1980 P Cr. L J 105