MUHAMMAD JAN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Jan, who was implicated in a murder case registered under FIR No. 61 of 1998 at Police Station Harnoli, District Mianwali. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the existence of two conflicting versions of the incident on the record. The initial FIR, lodged by the complainant, did not name the petitioner as an accused. However, a subsequent statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by an eyewitness, Khan Gull, deviated significantly from the FIR, exonerating the originally named accused and instead attributing the fatal shot to the petitioner. The Court held that the presence of these two contradictory versions created sufficient doubt regarding the petitioner's involvement at the pre-trial stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, ruling that the existence of conflicting versions of the incident is a valid ground to categorize a case as one requiring further inquiry under the law, thereby entitling the accused to the concession of bail.
- Does the existence of two conflicting versions of an incident in the record constitute a ground for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the initial FIR does not name them, but subsequent statements implicate them?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Criminal case F.I.R. No,61 of 1998, dated 29-5-1998 under sections 302/ 148/149/34/109 PPC was registered at Police Station Harnoli, Distt Mianwali, on the report of Shamsher Ali. The complainant and his father Bashir were tenants of one Khan Gul. They both had gone to irrigate their lands on 29-5-1998 at about 1-00 a.m. At about 4-30 a.m. Muhammad Bashir went towards outlet of the water-channel and was followed by the complainant and Khan Gul. It is alleged that Abdul Malik, Muhammad Amir, Muhammad Sabir, Ashiq, Sardar and Afzal armed with shot guns started firing at Bashir. The shot fired by Muhammad Sabir hit Muhammad Bashir who fell down. The accused thereafter resorted to indiscriminate firing and thereafter went away.
2. Subsequently, Khan Gull, made a statement under section 161, Cr.P.C.. Before the Investigating Officer, which was to the effect that Muhammad Jan petitioner had fired at Muhammad Bashir and had murdered him while Habibullah was armed with a stick and had raised a lalkara at the time of incident. Ahmad Nawaz, brother of Shamsher Ali complainant and Muhammad Zaman also supported the version of Khan Gull.
3. The petitioner was arrested and has applied for grant of bail to him. Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the State have been heard and record seen.
4. The name of the petitioner does not figure in the first information report which was recorded at 7-00 a.m. On 29-5-1998. Subsequently, certain witnesses including Khan Gull whose name is mentioned in the first information report as one of the eyewitnesses gave a different version of the incident. In the second version, the accused who were named in the first information report were exonerated and Muhammad Jan, present petitioner and one Habibullah were shown as the real culprit. There are two versions on record. In the first version, the petitioner was not named as accused while in the second version he was ascribed fatal shot to the deceased. There being two versions on record, this fact alone is sufficient to make the case of the petitioner as that of further inquiry.
5. The petitioner under the circumstances is allowed bail in the sum of rupees one lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Messrs TAUNSA GYPSUM (PVT.) LTD vs HABIB BANK LTD. 2009 CLD 1671