MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Ashraf, who was accused of murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with F.I.R. No. 538 of 2000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to have overpowered the deceased but was empty-handed and caused no injuries, was entitled to bail, particularly given that a co-accused assigned a similar role had been declared innocent during the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner's case required further inquiry as contemplated under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court observed that the petitioner was unarmed, caused no injury, and that his involvement could potentially be a result of false implication due to his familial relationship with other accused persons. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, establishing the principle that where the role attributed to an accused is similar to that of a co-accused found innocent during investigation, and the accused is unarmed, a case for further inquiry is made out.
- Does the declaration of innocence of a co-accused with a similar role during investigation provide grounds for bail for the remaining accused?
- Is an accused who was unarmed and caused no injury entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When does an allegation against an accused require further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Ashraf, petitioner, through the instant petition has sought his post-arrest bail in a case F.I.R. No, 538 of 2000 dated 22-10-2000 registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal, for the murder of one Umar Hayat, brother of the complainant, Muhammad Ali.
2'. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he alongwith Mst. Bakhat Bibi overpowered the deceased while Saif-ur-Rehman, co-accused, who was armed with a hatchet inflicted fatal blows on the person of Umar Hayat, deceased.
3. The motive as mentioned in the F.I.R. Is that the deceased was suspected to have some relationship with Mst. Bakhat Bibi, who was also mentioned as accused in the F.I.R. According to the F.I.R., the deceased was murdered in the house of Saif-ur-Rehman, accused, son of Mst. Bakhat Bibi, co-accused.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It has been noticed that Mst. Bakhat Bibi was found to be innocent during the investigation, who was assigned the similar role as alleged against the present petitioner.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner was empty-handed and did not cause any injury to the deceased. The petitioner is maternal uncle of Saif-urRehman, accused and brother of Mst. Bakhat Bibi, co- accused. The likelihood of his being falsely involved in the present case cannot be ruled out.
Reliance is placed on the case of Miran Bakhsh v. The State and another (PLD 1989 SC 347). The allegation against the petitioner needs further probe and inquiry as envisaged in subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow this petition and admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,One lac, with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Judge.