MUMTAZ AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by Muhammad Anwar, who was implicated in a criminal case involving a murderous assault resulting in the death of one person and injury to another. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was alleged to be armed with a rifle but only caused a simple injury with the butt of the weapon to a prosecution witness, was entitled to bail pending trial. The Court observed that the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased and that his failure to discharge his firearm, despite being armed, prima facie indicated a lack of murderous intent. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner's case required further inquiry within the meaning of the statutory provisions governing bail. The Court granted bail, establishing the principle that where the specific role attributed to an accused—even in a serious offence—lacks evidence of murderous intent or fatal injury, the case warrants further probe, thereby satisfying the requirements for bail under the relevant procedural law.
- Does the use of a rifle butt to cause a simple injury, without firing the weapon, negate the prima facie existence of murderous intent for the purpose of bail?
- When does an allegation against an accused in a murder case warrant further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 285, 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
At the very outset the learned counsel, for the petitioners states that he would not press this bail application to the extent of Mumtaz Ahmad petitioner. Dismissed as having not been pressed.
2. Muharhmad Anwar petitioner has sought his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,302 of 2001 registered at Police Station Saddar, Arifwala on 15-7-2001 for offences under sections 302/337- A(ii)/285/148/149, P. P.0 .
3. According to the F.I.R. eight persons launched a murderous assault on the complainant party causing the death of Muhammad Abbas and also caused injuries on Shah Muhammad . The precise allegation against the petitioner Muhammad Anwar is that he was armed with a rifle and caused injury with the butt of his rifle on the right hand of P.W. Shah Muhammad.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. The injury attributed to the petitioner has been declared simple in nature. Although the petitioner was armed with a rifle yet the allegation against him is that he used the butt of his rifle and caused injury on the hand of Shah Muhammad P.W. Admittedly, the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased. The mere fact that the petitioner who was armed with a rifle did not make any fire prima facie shows that he had no intention to cause intentional death of anyone. The allegations against the petitioner in these circumstances need further probe and inquiry within the purview of subsection (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am inclined to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ASIF and anothers vs THE STATE and anothers 2012 YLR 550