MUHAMMAD NADIM BUTT and another vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Batapur, Lahore. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, who were specifically ascribed the role of ineffective firing with no recovery of weapons from them and no matching spent casings, are entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail. The court held that since the allegation against the petitioners was limited to ineffective firing and their weapons were not recovered, their case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to furnishing surety bonds, while noting that the prosecution could seek bail cancellation if the concession was misused. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is assigned the role of ineffective firing without corroborating weapon recoveries linking them to the fatal or injury shots, their case reasonably attracts further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Whether an accused person ascribed only the role of ineffective firing is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of weapon recovery and matching ballistic evidence regarding an accused support a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Can bail be granted when the primary role of causing injuries is attributed to co-accused rather than the petitioners?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioners are accused in case F.I.R. No,5 of 2000, dated 15-1-2000, under section 302/324/148/149/109, P.P.C., Police Station Batapur, Lahore. According to allegations contained in the first information report, Muhammad Tufail alias Shera Butt alongwith a number of persons including the petitioners, while variously armed went to the shop of brother of the complainant, started bad-mouthing and then declared that he would be taught a lesson for enmity with Liaqat Ali. According to the complainant in his view, Muhammad Tufail fired with pistol which hit his brother and then Shabbir Ahnad fired at the victim. Asif Butt fired at Babar Butt, while Muhammad Irfan fired at Naveed Butt. According to the complainant, the other accused continued firing in the air and kept extending threats of life to anybody who approached the scene of occurrence.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that they were ascribed an artificial role on account of relationship with other accused and that the only role ascribed by them was that of ineffective firing which was not corroborated by any other evidence brought on file. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant strenuously opposed the prayer made. It was urged that all the accused having armed themselves with lethal weapons had gone to the shop of the victim and the present petitioners had also used their weapons and prima facie, were vicariously, liable for the offence committed and did not deserve concession of bail.
3. Admittedly, the allegation against the petitioners is that of ineffective firing. The weapons employed by them in the course of occurrence were not recovered. The spent casings recovered from the spot matched with the weapons recovered at the instance of other accused and in these circumstances, case of the petitioners is, considered to be that of further inquiry.
4. Petitioners are allowed bail in the sum of Rupees one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
5. In case the petitioners misused the concession of bail in any manner, the complainant or the State would be at liberty to approach the Court for cancellation of bail being allowed to the petitioners.
Cited by 2 cases
- SAIF-UR-REHMAN alias SHOYA vs The STATE 2019 MLD 729
- ABBAS and another vs THE STATE 2008 MLD 143