MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs THE STATE
This matter comes before the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Muhammad Saleem seeking post-arrest bail after his earlier bail granted by the Judicial Magistrate was cancelled by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner is entitled to post-arrest bail in a case presenting conflicting police opinions regarding whether the incident was a roadside accident or a deliberate attempt to commit murder under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The court held that the case is a borderline one between an accident and a deliberate attempt on the lives of the victims, and until the trial court weighs the evidence, the case falls within the ambit of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court accepted the petition and directed the petitioner to be released on bail subject to furnishing appropriate security bonds.
- Whether the benefit of conflicting police opinions during investigation can be extended to an accused for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Does a case involving a borderline determination between a roadside accident and a deliberate attempt to murder fall within the ambit of further inquiry?
- Whether bail can be granted when the applicability of section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code requires the weighment of evidence by the trial court?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Muhammad Saleem petitioner was arrested on 7-4-2000 during the course of investigation of Crime Report No.259, dated 7-4-2000, registered at Police Station Jaranwala. One Muhammad Rafiq, alleged to be an eye--witness of the said occurrence, had lodged instant crime report against the petitioner. He was released on bail on 17-4-2000 by a learned Judicial Magistrate at Jaranwala. This order was called in question by the complainant by moving a cancellation petition against him, which came up for hearing before learned Sessions Judge at Faisalabad, who after consideration of facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety proceeded to cancel his bail through his order dated 29-5-2000.
2. By moving the instant petition, the applicant seeks his post-arrest bail on the grounds that the Investigating Officer, who carried out investigation at the initial stage, arrived at the conclusion that Lal Din and Tariq Javed had sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioner while driving his jeep and at best it was a road side accident. At a later stage, when investigation was taken over by S.D.P.O./D.S.P., he did not agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer. He proceeded to direct the local police to add section 324, P.P.C. Into list of offences. So, the argument developed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the benefit of conflicting police opinions is to be extended to the petitioner and to none else. He next argued that all important factors i.e. Intention to kill is awfully missing from facts and circumstances of the case and Zahid Mansoor son of Lal Din had instituted a declaratory suit against Muhammad Saleem-petitioner and his maternal aunt Mst. Inayat Bibi only three days before the present occurrence and taking advantage of this occurrence, he built up story in the present form brick by brick to implicate- the petitioner in this false case, which has been got registered in absolutely false premises.
3. Grant of bail to the petitioner is opposed by the adverse side on the ground that the complainant had shifted Lai Din and Tariq Javed to the hospital. All the witnesses had corroborated the F.I.R.
Version through their statements under section 161, Cr. P. C. And, as such, bail already allowed to the petitioner stood rightly cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge at Faisalabad.
4. After taking everything into my full consideration, I am of the view that this is a border line case between an accident and deliberate attempt at the lives of the victims on the part of the petitioner.
This vital question can well be determined by the trial Court after recording of some material evidence in the case. Whether provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Are applicable or not to the facts and circumstances of the case is also a vital question to be gone into by the trial Court after doing weighment of the evidence and until then, case of the petitioner falls within the ambit of further inquiry.
5. Resultantly, I accept this petition and direct the petitioner to be released on 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 trial Court/Duty Magistrate at Jaranwala. .