MASSAN alias MASSU vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Massan alias Massu, who was charged in F.I.R. No. 236 of 2001 under sections 324, 353, 224, 225, 148, 149, 337-A(ii), and 337-L(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, an elderly man, was entitled to bail given the allegations of resisting arrest and the counter-version presented by the defense. The prosecution alleged the petitioner's family attacked the police party during his arrest, while the defense contended the police raided the home without cause, injuring family members. The Court held that there was no specific allegation that the petitioner himself resisted arrest, nor was he armed or attributed a specific role in the violence. Noting the existence of a counter-version and injuries to the petitioner's family, the Court determined that the petitioner's guilt required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing that where the accused's direct involvement is absent and a counter-version exists, the case warrants further investigation, justifying the grant of bail.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when there is no specific allegation of resistance or violence attributed to him in the F.I.R.?
- Does the existence of a counter-version involving injuries to the accused's family constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to attribute a specific role to the accused in the alleged offense?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 224, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 225, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 7, Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
ORDER
' Seeks bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,236 of 2001, dated 7-9-2001, under sections 324/353, 224, 225, 148, 149, 337-A(ii)/ 337-L(b), P.P.C. Read with section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, registered on the statement of Sher Muhammad, Sub-Inspector to the effect that on the fateful day he alongwith the, members of the police party went to petitioner's village with a view to effect arrest of the petitioner in a case pending trial before the learned Special Judge, WAPDA in which on account of his non-appearance warrant of arrest had been issued. He arrested the petitioner and as the petitioner was being taken the members of the petitioner's family namely his two sons and womenfolk armed with weapons attacked the police party resorted to firing and injured Hameed, Constable with butt of gun.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution story as alleged in the F.I.R. Is false, that the police party entered the house of the petitioner without informing them of their purpose at midnight, that the sons of the petitioner wanted to know about the purpose of police raid and instead of informing them of the purpose the police party started belabouring them and as a result of this two womenfolk of the petitioner's family were injured. He added that the petitioner is an old man of above 62 years of age.
3. Learned State Counsel opposed the petition by submitting that the petitioner had taken law into his hands by resisting the arrest and that no case for bail is made out.
4. Heard.
5. There is no allegation against the petitioner that he resisted the arrest. Admittedly, he was neither armed nor any role is attributed to him. Petitioner party has a counter-version regarding which they have filed a private Complaint. It is not denied that during the occurrence two womenfolk of the petitioner's family were also injured. In these circumstances, the question of petitioner's guilt would require further enquiry. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.