GHULAM NABI alias WALI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Ghulam Nabi alias Wali, who was charged under Sections 302, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with a double murder case. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the specific evidentiary circumstances, particularly the lack of specific injury attribution and the findings of innocence in multiple police investigations. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the prosecution attributed only a general role of indiscriminate firing to the accused, no recovery was effected from him, and, crucially, three successive police investigations had declared him innocent. The Court determined that these factors brought the case within the purview of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, necessitating further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the petition was accepted, and the accused was admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
- Does a finding of innocence in multiple police investigations entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when only a general role of firing is attributed without specific injury assignment?
- Does the absence of recovery from an accused constitute a ground for granting post-arrest bail?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Ghulam Nabi alias Wali petitioner through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No,158, dated 26-5-2002, under sections 302/148/149, P.P.C. With Police Station Saddar Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 26-5-2002 at about 12-30 noon, Muhammad Rafique, Nazar, Mian, Wzli, Siddique alias Cheen and Manzoor, who' were hiding themselves at Adda Kotla Adeeb Shaheed suddenly came out armed with fire-arms and had started indiscriminating firing at Zulfiqar alias Pappu and Riaz alias Rajoo, who sustained injuries on their persons and succumbed to the same at the spot.
' The motive behind the occurrence is that the accused had murdered Imtiaz, the brother of the complainant and both the deceased had been pm \ping that case and the accused in order to restrain them from the same had committed their murder.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that no specific injury to any of the deceased persons has been attributed to him and rather only general role of indiscriminating firing at them has been ascribed to him; that no recovery was effected from him; and that in the three successive investigations, he has been found innocent and so his case is covered within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into his guilt; and that he is behind the bars and previous non-convict.
4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R. With specific role of firing at the two deceased, persons alongwith his co- accused which resulted into their death; and that the motive is also ascribed to him. He, however, has conceded that he during the three successive investigations has been found innocent.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made from both the sides with the help of available record.
6. The fact remains that no specific injury of any of the deceased persons is ascribed to him. The general role of firing alongwith his co-accused at the deceased persons has been ascribed to him.
Admittedly, no recovery whatsoever has been effected from him.
7. He admittedly has also been found innocent in the three successive investigations. These were conducted by Javed Ali, D.S.P./ S.D.P.O., Saddar Chichawatni Circle, Muhammad Younis, S.-I./S.H.O.
And Muhammad Jameel, S.-I. Of the said police station.
8. In view of these facts and particularly the finding of innocence recorded by three different Police Officers in his favor, his case is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Requiring further inquiry into his guilt.
9. He is stated to be behind the bars and previous non-convict. In these circumstances, the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail Bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- HAROON BADSHAH vs THE STATE and another 2005 P Cr. L J 1191