AMANULLAH SUBZOI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicant, Amanullah, who was charged under sections 302, 504, 147, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a murder case. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given the presence of general allegations, the fact that other co-accused were placed in column No. 2 of the challan, and the specific role attributed to him. The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant failed to establish a case for further inquiry. The Court reasoned that the medical evidence, which showed nine firearm injuries on the deceased, corroborated the prosecution's version and negated the claim of general allegations. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that while investigation reports and the placement of names in column No. 2 of a challan are relevant, they are not the sole criteria for bail. Courts must independently assess the material on record to determine if reasonable grounds exist to believe the accused committed the crime.
- Are investigation reports and the placement of an accused in column No. 2 of a challan the sole criteria for determining bail?
- Does the presence of multiple firearm injuries on a deceased person rebut a claim of general allegations against an accused in a bail application?
- Should a court decide a bail application based on conflicting investigation reports or on the material available on record?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' Bail has been sought by applicant Amanullah in a case registered at Police Station Durani Mahar for an punishable under sections 302, 504, 147 and 149, P.P.C.
2. ' It is the case of prosecution that on the day of incident i,e, 29-6-2001, complainant Muhammad Murad, deceased Arbab and P.Ws. Shah Murad and Arz Muhammad were going to attend `Khairar of Allandad Sabzoi when they were accosted by accused Ghulam Yasmeen armed with Klashnikov, Muhammad Ibrahim, Amanullah (the applicant) Dost Muhammad, Abdul Rehman and Abdul Rasheed armed with guns and two unidentified culprits armed with T.T. Pistols Ghulam Yaseen and the other accused fired from their K.K. And guns respectively which hit Arbab who fell down and died.
3. ' Bail in respect of co-accused Allah Dino was allowed by the learned trial Court on the ground that he was implicated as one of the unidentified persons on the basis of belated statements of persons who were not shown as witnesses.
4. ' As regards the present applicant Mr. Saeed Ahmed Kijarani submitted that main accused Ghulam Yaseen who was allegedly armed with Klashnikov and his fire had hit the deceased, and also three co-accused were let off by the police and they are placed in column No,2 of the challan. On the score and also on the ground that there are general allegations against the present applicant, the case of the latter would call for further enquiry. He relied on the authorities reported as Shafi Muhammad v. The State (2002 PCr.LJ, 494), Bashir Ahmed v. The State (1989 PCr.0 1783)= and Muhammad Akram v. The Stale (1993 pCr.0 329).
5. Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar learned Assistant Advocate-General vehemently opposed the bail On the grouns that as regards the accused who have been let off, the complainant has made an application to the trial Court for joining them which has not yet been decided, the name of the present applicant transit's in the and specific role assigned to hun, gun has been recovered from hirn,'4P.Ws. Arz ,Muhammad and Shah Murad whose statements under. Section 161, Cr.P,C. Were recorded promptly fully supported the version of the. Complainant, this is a broad daylight incident, and there are as many as nine fire-arm injuries on the person of deceased.
6. ' All the grounds advanced by the learned Assistant Advocate-General militate against the bail plea, The ground urged by learned counsel for the applicant that the main accused Ghulam Yaseen and three others have been let off also stands rebutted as the complainant has made an application to the trial Court for joining them. Nevertheless the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Din v. The State (1998 SCMR I) has observed in clear terms that the Courts while considering the merits of application for bail should take a decision on the basis of material available on record to see if reasonable grounds exist to believe that the accused was involved in the Crime and the Court should avoid taking crucial decision merely on the basis of conflicting investigation reports and entry of the name of accused in column No,2 of the challan which might be relevant but not the sole criteria for grant of bail. In the instant matter, the case' of the applicant is still on a lesser footing, as it was not the applicant, who was placed in column No,2 but the co- accused. Nevertheless the outcome of an application made by the complainant as regards main accused is yet to be seen but the present applicant cannot make capital out of the police opinion recorded in favour of co-accused.
7. ' The other contention that there are general allegations is also answered by the medical evidence that there were as many as nine fire-arm injuries on the body of deceased. The authorities cited by the learned counsel in view of the observation made by the Honourable Supreme Court referred to above are also not applicable to this case.
8. The bail plea, therefore, cannot be sustained and the application is dismissed.