MUHAMMAD SARWAR vs THE STATE
This criminal petition was filed before the Lahore High Court seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, who was nominated in a First Information Report (FIR) for an armed attack resulting in murder and injuries. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail when the FIR attributed no overt act or ineffective firing to him, but subsequent statements of the deceased and an injured prosecution witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 attributed a specific injury to him. The Court observed a material contradiction between the FIR, which attributed the specific knee injury to two unknown persons, and the subsequent statements of the witnesses. The Court held that such conflicting versions on the record made the petitioner's involvement a case of further inquiry. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the petitioner was admitted to post-arrest bail.
- Whether a material contradiction between the initial FIR and subsequent statements of witnesses regarding the specific role of an accused makes the case one of further inquiry for the grant of bail?
- Can post-arrest bail be granted where no overt act or ineffective firing is attributed to the accused in the FIR, despite being named as armed?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.-- FIR in this case has been lodged by Ghulam Rasool, who is brother of Hakim deceased and uncle of Qurban PW.
2. According to the FIR, Abdul Rasheed,- Abdul Majeed .Sons of Najabat Ali armed with 12 bore gun, Muhammad Sarwar present petitioner armed with 12 bore and two unknown persons way-laid the complainant. Muhammad Sarwar present petitioner raised a lalkara to the effect that they would teach them a lesson for giving divorce to Safia Bibi, thereafter, fired two shots simultaneously on Hakim which hit him on his left arm and buttock "then Abdul Majeed fifed a shot which hit Qurban on his left arm. Two unknown persons also fired indiscriminately which hit Quran on his left knee and left arm, who fell down. Hakim expired later on.
3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is named in the FIR, that he was armed with 12 bore gun, that though no overt act is attributed to him in the FIR but Hakim deceased in his life time and Qurban injured PW in his statement recorded u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. Have attributed a specific role for causing injury on the knee of Qurban, that case of the petitioner is covered by the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
And petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the State and complainant, In the instant case though the present petitioner was armed with 12 bore .Gun but no overt act whatsoever is attributed to him, even no ineffective firing is attributed to him in the FIR, later on as stated by both the counsels that according to the statements of Hakim and Qurban petitioner fired with his 12 bore gun and caused injury on the knee of Qurban. Bare perusal of the FIR shows that this injury on the knee of Qurban is specifically attributed to two unknown persons mentioned in the FIR. Now there are two versions on the record one in the FIR and the other by injured PW, I think a case of further inquiry is made out.
This petition is accepted. Petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like- amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.