MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and anothers vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by two petitioners, Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Anwar, who were charged under Sections 324, 337-F(ii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Kameer, District Sahiwal. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with co-accused, attempted to commit the Qatl-i-Amd of the complainant's brother. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the specific roles attributed to them. The Court observed that while petitioner Muhammad Ashraf was present at the scene, no overt act was ascribed to him. Similarly, petitioner Muhammad Anwar was only attributed with raising a lalkara and did not cause any injury, despite being allegedly armed. Noting that no recoveries were made from the petitioners and that they had been incarcerated for over three and a half months, the Court held that their case fell under the purview of further inquiry as per Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail to both petitioners.
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of a crime without an overt act warrant the denial of bail?
- Is the attribution of a lalkara sufficient to deny bail when no specific injury is caused by the accused?
- When does a case fall under the category of further inquiry for the purpose of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Anwar the petitioners have moved the instant petition to seek after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,133 dated 13-8-2002 under section 324/337-F(ii) read with section 34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Kameer, District Sahiwal.
2. Briefly, the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that on 12-8-2002 at ,about 3-30 p.m. Muhammad Anwar (petitioner No,2) armed with .30 bore pistol, Muhammad Ashraf (petitioner No,1) armed with .7 MM rifle, Ansar Mehmood with pump action and Akmal alias Phana armed with .12 bore gun, in furtherance of their common intention, have attempted the Qatl-i-Amd of Zafar Ali, the real brother of the complainant. Ansar Mehmood fired at him hitting upper right side of his head. Akmal fired with his double barrel gun hitting him on his right knee, who fell down. Ansar Mehmood fired with pump action at Muhammad Boota hitting him on his palm of the right hand. Muhammad Anwar had been raising lalkara.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that Muhammad Anwar was injured by Sajjad alias Shada and Shahid Rasool. In that case Zafar Ali was involved falsely, who in the investigation was found innocent. On the grudge over the same, the accused have committed the above act.
4. It has been contended on their behalf that they have been falsely roped in; that mere lalkara is ascribed to the petitioner Muhammad Anwar and no injury to anyone; that no overt act is ascribed to petitioner Muhammad Ashraf; that nothing has been recovered from them; that they are behind the bars for the last more than 3-1/2 months; and that they are previous non-convicts.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the petition on the ground that they while armed with lethal weapons have joined their co-accused and in the occurrence committed by them two persons have been injured; that Anwar petitioner has been ascribed the motive behind the incident.
6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of the available record.
7. The fact remains that mere presence of petitioner No,1 Muhammad Ashraf with .7 MM rifle at the spot has been shown in the He has been ascribed no overt act in commission of the crime alleged.
Although petitioner No,2 Muhammad Anwar has been ascribed the role of lalkara but he did not cause any injury despite the fact that he allegedly was armed with .30 bore pistol. Admittedly nothing has been recovered from them. So the question of their sharing common intention with their co-accused in the attempt of murder of Zafar Ali and causing injury to Muhammad Boota needs further inquiry and as such, their case is covered under subsection (2) of a section 497, Cr.P.C.
8. They are stated to be behind the bars for the last about 3-1/2 months and previous non-convicts.
9. In these circumstances, I find them entitled to bail. The petition, therefore, is accepted and they are admitted to bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.