MUHAMMAD AMEEN and others vs THE STATE
The petitioners approached the Lahore High Court seeking pre-arrest or post-arrest bail (referred to as a bail petition) in a criminal matter arising from a First Information Report involving an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that the investigating officer found them innocent and that the section was not attracted regarding certain petitioners. Conversely, the complainant opposed the petition, highlighting prompt FIR registration, specific role attribution, lack of recovery, and the petitioners' status as fugitives for not surrendering after their bail was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The Court considered the rival submissions and held that the question of the petitioners' guilt under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warranted further inquiry. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioners subject to furnishing requisite security bonds.
- Whether the question of guilt for an offence under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 constitutes a matter of further inquiry warranting bail?
- Does the absence of recovery at a preliminary stage preclude the grant of bail when further inquiry is made out?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the entire circumstances, of the case as well as the police investigation have resulted in a finding by the Investigating Officer that the two petitioners are innocent. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that the provisions of section 324, P.P.C. Are not attracted to the case because there is only one fire-arm injury allegedly caused to the complainant/injured Ijaz Ahmad by Muhammad Nadeem.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant pointed out that the F.I.R. Had been promptly recorded and a specific role had been attributed to the two petitioners. He further contended that no recovery has as yet been effected.
3. Apart from the above submissions, learned counsel for the complainant also contended that the petitioners were fugitives from the law as they had not surrendered to the police when their bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge had been rejected.
4. 1 have considered the contentions of both learned counsel and note that the question of the guilt of the petitioners for an offence under section 324, P.P.C., is one of further inquiry. Learned counsel for the complainant wishes to refer to some case-law, but I do not find that necessary while disposing of the present petition in the circumstances narrated above.
5. In this view of the matter, the petitioners are allowed bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.