MUHAMMAD YAKOOB and 8 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by nine accused persons involved in Crime No. 4 of 2002 registered under sections 302, 301, 324, 337-A(ii) F(ii) H(ii), 337A(i) F(i), 353, 147, 148, 149, 427, 447 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Naing Sharif. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail when there are no specific firearm attributions, lack of medical reports regarding alleged violence against police, absence of recovered incriminating articles, and delayed trial proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby entitling the applicants to bail. The key principle laid down is that where no specific overt acts or weapon recoveries are attributed to the accused in a crowd-related incident and trial has not progressed significantly while the accused remain in custody, a case for further inquiry is made out for the grant of bail.
- Are accused persons entitled to post-arrest bail when no specific firearm attribution or weapon recovery is established against them?
- Does the absence of medical examination reports regarding alleged violence against police officials support a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Whether participation in an unlawful assembly without specific overt acts warrants the refusal of bail when the trial has not commenced with the framing of a charge?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 301, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
This application has been moved by nine persons namely Muhammad Yaqoob son of Bahadur Marri, Sher Muhammad son of Muhammad Saleh Marri, Shero Sher Muhammad son of Muhammad Bachal Marri, Motio son of Rabdino Marri, Lal Bux son of Wallo @ Jalal Marri, Bilawal son of Jarro Marri, Juman son of Haroon Marri, Bhooro son of Moryo Marri and Ghulam Nabi son of Dillo Marri, who are involved in Crime No,4/2002 under sections 302, 301, 324, 337-A(ii) F(ii) H(ii), 337A(i) F(i), 353, 147, 148, 149, 427, 447, P.P.C. Read with section 17(3), E.H.O. Of Police Station Naing Sharif.
2. The facts of the case narrated in the F.I.R. It appears from the contents of the F.I.R. That on the day of incident about 40/42 persons entered into the premises of the company and caused damage to the property. During this someone from the crowd snatched the gun from the police official Khair Muhammad Birehmani and started firing, as a result of which one Fazil who was present there died on the spot. The names of applicants Nos.1, 6, 7 8 and 9 are not disclosed in the F.I.R. However, the names of applicants No,2, 3, 4 and 5 appear therein. In respect of murder of Fazil another F.I.R.
Bearing No,5 of 2002 of the same Police Station was also recorded. In this F.I.R. Three persons were named and all of them were granted bail before arrest in Criminal Bail Applications Nos.226 of 2002 and 867 of 2002 (Karachi).
3. A perusal of the record shows that there is no specific allegation against the present applicants in all and also four applicants named in the F.I.R. At the most, it appears that they were participants of crowd who entered into the premises of the company as narrated in the F.I.R. The Court alongwith Mr. Habibur Rasheed, learned State Counsel went through the entire police file but it was not found that as to who was that person who snatched the gun from the police official and fired which caused death of the Fazil. At least at this stage, it cannot be said that any of nine persons who are the applicants before this Court attributed to have caused fire-arm injury to deceased Fazil. As to the violence by these persons against the police officers, it was found that none of the police officer was medically examined and no report is available on record to that effect. It was also examined as to whether any incriminating article or crime weapon has been recovered from the applicants but the answer was in negative. The applicants are in custody since 30-4-2002 and according to the counsel for the applicants d has been submitted but the charge has not been framed so far.
4. Under the circumstances, a case of further inquiry has been made out in respect of all the applicants and they are entitled to the bail.
5. In view of the above, all the applicants are allowed bail subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,100,000 each (Rupees One lac each) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- AHSAN BASHIR vs The STATE 2016 P Cr. L J 741