MOULA BUX vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused facing trial for murder and attempted murder under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite being nominated in a promptly lodged FIR, having allegedly played an active role with a deadly weapon, and having remained a fugitive from law for eleven months. The Court held that the applicant was not entitled to bail, distinguishing his case from that of a co-accused who had previously been granted relief. The Court reasoned that the applicant’s plea of alibi, raised ten months after the incident, was suspicious and lacked credibility. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that when there are reasonable grounds to believe an accused is guilty of an offense falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the accused has absconded, bail must be declined. The judgment reaffirms that active participation in a violent crime, coupled with prolonged absconsion, disentitles an accused to the concession of bail.
- Does a plea of alibi raised ten months after an incident carry sufficient weight to justify the grant of bail?
- Can an accused who has remained a fugitive from law for a significant period after the incident be granted post-arrest bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if they are nominated in a promptly lodged FIR and alleged to have played an active role with a deadly weapon?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 114, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD ASHRAF LEGHARI, J.--- Applicant Moula Bux is facing trial under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149 and 114, P.P.C. In F.I.R. No,11 of 1999 of Police Station Garho.
2. On 14-6-1999 at 8-00 p.m. One Dhani Bux lodged first information report stating therein that he is driver of Syed Ali Nawaz Shah who has dispute with accused Muhammad Yousif and others over landed property. Such cases were pending in various Courts. On the fateful day, complainant, Ali Nawaz Shah, Soomar and Gul Muhammad proceeded to Garho Town with some work. At about 7- 30 p.m. When they reached in front the shop of Ismail Bhatti, they saw accused Mahboob and Hadi Bux armed with Kalashnikovs were standing in the shop of Ismail Bhatti. Moula Bux armed with Kalashnikov was standing near the car alongwith Muhammad Yousif. Accused Najaf, Amir Bux armed with guns, accused Zawar Hussain with rifle were also standing near them. Accused Muhammad Yousif instigated others, upon which Mahboob and Hadi Bux fired from their Kalashnikovs, as a result of which driver Haji Gul Muhammad and Syed Nawaz Ali Shah sustained injuries. Accused Moula Bux and Zawar Hussain fired over complainant and Soomar but they hide themselves. The accused fired in air in order to create terror in the public. Thereafter, they left the spot in a car and Datsun.
3. ' The complainant thereafter went near the injured and found that one boy Abdul Qadir had also sustained injuries. The police also reached. The complainant took injured Haji Gul Muhammad, Syed Ali Nawaz Shah and Abdul Qadir to the hospital but on the way Gul Muhammad Khashkheli succumbed to the injuries.
4. ' The police registered F.I.R. And took up investigation. After completing the investigation submitted challan.
5. ' It is contented by Mr. Muhammad Saleem, learned counsel for the accused that the fire shots of applicant did not hit anybody and went ineffective. The co-accused Muhammad Yousif has been granted bail and his case is identical to present accused. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity. The applicant was admitted in hospital on the day of incident as he was suffering from jaundice. Such certificate and discharge slip have been produced alongwith the bail application. It is stated that the witnesses Ali. Muhammad and Mst.
6. Bachhan have not supported the prosecution case before the police and the 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the witnesses are contradictory to each other. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases reported as Faraz Akram v. The State 1999 SCM R 1360, Hafiz Khuda Bakhsh and another v. The State PLD 1988 SC 413, Mst. Janatan Bibi v. Sher Muhammad and others 1968 SCM R 795, Sakhi Sultan v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 117, Waris Muhammad v. Haji Ahmed Yar and another 1976 SCM R 182, Muhammad Awais v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 377 and Mureed v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 1635.
7. ' Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar, learned A.A.-G. Has opposed the bail plea of the accused. He states that name of applicant is nominated in the F.I.R. Which is promptly lodged within 30 minutes. The applicant was armed with Kalashnikov. Injured Nawaz Ali Shah, Soomar and Moulvi Ibrahim have implicated the present applicant in their 161, Cr.P.C. Statements wherein they have stated that Moula Bux and Zawar Hussain directly fired towards them and one Abdul Qadir who was said to be sitting at Cabin sustained injuries and fell down. Syed Ali Nawaz Shah and Haji Gul Muhammad sustained injuries and fell down in the vehicle. The applicant was fugitive from law for about 11 months after the incident.
8. ' Mr. Amanullah G. Malik, learned counsel for the complainant has adopted the arguments of learned A.A.-G. And states that the applicant is not entitled to bail as he was armed with Kalashnikov and had played active role in the incident.
9. The perusal of record shows that name of applicant figures in the F.I.R. Which is promptly lodged.
10. He was armed with Kalashnikov and fired directly towards the injured and deceased Abdul Qadir.
11. The case of Muhammad Yousif who was earlier granted bail by this Court is quite distinguishable from the present applicant. The P.Ws. Have implicated applicant Moula Bux in their 161, Cr.P.C.
12. Statements. The enmity between the parties is the motive of this unfortunate incident. The case has not yet proceeded. Moreover, the applicant had the knowledge of the case as his father and brother were already booked in this very offence but in spite of it, he remained fugitive from law and did not explain the same in the bail application. So far, plea of alibi is concerned, i.e, submitted at a very late stage after the lapse of about 10 months which adversely reflects upon plea of alibi and genuineness of the documents. At this stage, there is ample evidence against the applicant on the record to suggest that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of the offence covered by prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The applicant does not deserve bail which is hereby declined. Listed applications stand disposed of.