HOZAIFA and others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Hozaifa alias Zaifa and Shah Faisal in case F.I.R. No. 1 of 1998 registered at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari, for offences under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners are entitled to post-arrest bail when no specific firearm injury or overt act is attributed to them, and they were allegedly present during an ongoing exchange of fire between two rival groups. The Lahore High Court held that since both petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased and no specific role or injury was attributed to them in the F.I.R., their case fell within the purview of further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing appropriate surety bonds, establishing the principle that generalized allegations without specific attribution during cross-firing incidents warrant further probe under the statutory provisions for bail.
- Whether an accused person to whom no specific injury or overt act is attributed during an exchange of fire between two groups is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does a generalized allegation of involvement in a cross-firing incident without causing fatal injuries justify further inquiry into the guilt of the accused for the purpose of bail?
- 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 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Hozaifa alias Zaifa and Shah Faisal petitioners have sought their post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,1 of 1998 registered at Police Station Gaggo, District Vehari on 1-1-1998 on the statement of one Muhammad Wazir son of Munshi for offences under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C.
2. According to the F.I.R. On the fateful day at about 7-35 a.m. While the complainant along with his brothers Ghulam Farid (deceased), Liaqat Ali and his nephew Akhtar Ali were proceeding towards his land from his house reached near the house of Shaukat Ali son of Sher Muhammad he saw that Khurshid group consisting of 26 persons and Elahi Bakhsh group consisting of seven persons were exchanging firing. It is further alleged that on seeing Ghulam Farid " (deceased) Shaukat, Khurshid, Makhan, Abdul Sattar and Ismail who were armed with guns raised a Lalakara that Ghulam Nabi along with others has reached the scene of occurrence and they should also be taught a lesson.
Thereafter, Shaukat fired with his gun which hit Ghulam Nabi who had succumbed to the injuries.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
Admittedly, both the petitioners did not cause any injury to the deceased nor any specific injury is attributed to them in the F.I.R. According to the F.I.R. Two groups were exchanging fire when they saw the complainant and his companions and the members of Khurshid group fired at the brother of the complainant who lost his life. In these circumstances the allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
Therefore, I admit the petitioners to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Mian SAGHIR AHMAD and another vs THE STATE 2005 P C R L J 654
- Mian SAGHIR AHMAD Versus State 2005 PCRLJ 654