FALAK SHER vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Falak Sher, who was nominated in an FIR registered under sections 302, 34, 337-F(i), and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his alleged involvement in a criminal attack. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the police investigation declared him innocent, despite his initial nomination in the FIR. The Court observed that the investigation found the petitioner innocent, along with several other co-accused, including those initially attributed with fatal injuries. Furthermore, no weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner, and the injury attributed to him was on a non-vital part of the body. The Court held that the petitioner's involvement in the case required further inquiry, thereby satisfying the criteria for bail. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, establishing the principle that a police finding of innocence during investigation is a significant factor supporting the grant of bail pending trial.
- Does a police report declaring an accused innocent during investigation constitute sufficient grounds to warrant further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the injury attributed to them was inflicted on a non-vital part of the body?
- Does the failure to recover a weapon of offence from an accused support a claim for post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Falak Sher son of Muhammad Sharif is accused in the F.I.R. No,76 of 2001, dated 1-5-2001 under sections 302/34/337-F(i)/149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Kotli Loharan at the instance of Nisar Ahmad.
2. ' The allegation against the petitioner as contained in the F.I.R. Is that he while armed with gun alongwith other co-accused who were also armed with deadly weapons ai tacked the complainant party. The petitioner caused fire-arm injury on the leg of the complainant while his co-accused caused death of Mst. Shagufta by fire-aria injuries.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the investigation the story of the F.I.R. Has been found false. Out of 15 nominated accused 12 including the petitioner have been declared innocent. Out of all only Bilal Raza alias Bali and Mubarak alias Billa have been found guilty alongwith two others namely Mukhtar and Ali ".Tza who were not nominated accused in the F.I.R.
4. The co-accused who were declared innocent have been allowed bail even those who were attributed fatal injuries; that no weapon of offence: has been recovered from the petitioner. Despite the allegation that there was indiscriminating firing at the spot no empty has been taken into possession by the police.
5. ' Conversely the bail has been opposed by the learned State counsel by arguing that the petitioner is nominated accused in promptly recorded FIR., with specific role and the offence falls under the prohibitory clause.
6. ' Heard. Record perused.
7. The petitioner alongwith II others has been declared innocent during the investigation including the accused who were attributed fatal injuries. The alleged weapon of offence has also not been recovered from the petitioner. The injury attributed to the petitioner, was on non-vital part of the body. The petitioner has been declared innocent by the police on sufficient material. Therefore, the petitioner's involvement in the instant case is of further inquiry..
8. ' I am persuaded on allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- SHAHID ALI vs THE STATE 2006 YLR 1866
- ABDUL NAVEED SHAKOOR vs THE STATE 2004 YLR 2699