JAHANGIR KHAN and 4 others vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought post-arrest bail in respect of case F.I.R. No. 151 dated 7-12-1999 registered at Police Station Qamar Masani, District Mianwali, for murder and hurt. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail when no specific overt acts or injuries were attributed to them, apart from a general allegation of firing and a Lalkara by one petitioner, and no crime empties were recovered from the spot. The court held that since the petitioners were not saddled with any injuries to the deceased or the injured witness, no crime empty was recovered to support the general firing allegation, and they appeared to have been roped in due to being close relatives of the principal accused, their case called for further inquiry. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail to all five petitioners subject to furnishing requisite security bonds. The key principle laid down is that where accused persons are not attributed specific overt acts or injuries and their complicity appears doubtful due to lack of corroborative recovery, further inquiry is attracted under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when no specific overt act or injury is attributed to the petitioners?
- Does the absence of crime empties at the scene falsify allegations of general firing for the purpose of bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail on the ground of further inquiry when falsely implicated along with family members?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The five petitioners pray for bail in case F.I.R. 151, dated 7-12-1999 of Police Station Qamar Masani of District Mianwali. In the occurrence in question one Rafi was murdered while one Asmatullah had received injuries on his person but had survived. The injuries to Rafi deceased are attributed to the three co-accused persons of the present petitioners namely, Asharf, Abdullah and Ameer Abdullah while the injuries to Asmatullah P.W. Stand ascribed to another co-accused of the petitioners namely, Hayat Ullah. None of the five petitioners is saddled with any overt act in the occurrence in question except rising of a Lalkara by Jahangir petitioner. The first three petitioners are real brothers. The fourth petitioner is the son of Faiz petitioner while Ghulam Habib petitioner is a son of the brother of the first three petitioners. Amongst the four accused persons who stand burdened with the overt acts, Hayatullah accused is a brother of first three petitioners before me Ameer Abdullah accused is a son of Hameedullah petitioner; Abdullah accused is a cousin of Ghulam Habib petitioner while Ashraf accused is a son of a brother of the first three petitioners herein. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners also is that the complainant had a maliciously widened the net to falsely implicate the entire family of the petitioner party. It is further added that the allegations of general firing by the petitioners and others is falsified by the fact that not a single crime empty has been recovered from the place of occurrence.
2. The learned State Counsel and the learned counsel for the complainant obviously opposed the part of bail to the petitioners on the ground that they were specifically nominated in the F.I.R.
3. The five petitioners before this Court are not saddled with any injury to anyone in the occurrence in question. Despite the allegations of general firing by them not a single crime empty was found at the spot.
' The five petitioners are close relatives of the co-accused who stand handed with the injuries to Rafi deceased and Asmatullah P.W.
4. In this view of the matter, all the five petitioners are admitted to bail in case F.I.R. No,151, dated 7- 12-1999 of Police Station Qamar Masani of District Mianwali, subject to each one of them furnishing security in the sum of Rs,30,000 with two sureties each in the like amount in the case of each petitioner to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.