MURAD SHAH vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from a criminal case where the petitioner was accused of firing a shot at the deceased, Mubarik Shah, using a .12 bore gun. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the principle of further inquiry, given discrepancies between the FIR allegations and the medical evidence, alongside findings of innocence during police investigations. The Court observed that the post-mortem report contradicted the FIR, as no firearm injury was found on the deceased's left arm, and all injuries were located elsewhere. Furthermore, the Court noted that no incriminating weapon was recovered from the petitioner, and he had been declared innocent by two separate investigating officers, including an Assistant Superintendent of Police. Holding that the case fell squarely within the scope of further inquiry under the relevant statutory provision, the Court granted bail. The key principle laid down is that where medical evidence contradicts the prosecution's version of events and police investigation reports consistently find the accused innocent, the case warrants the grant of bail as a matter of right under the statutory provisions governing further inquiry.
- Does a contradiction between the FIR and the post-mortem report regarding the location of injuries constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the finding of innocence by multiple investigating officers a relevant factor in determining bail entitlement?
- Can bail be denied under the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the prosecution's primary allegations are unsupported by medical evidence?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' In support of this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the F.I.R..
Petitioner was armed with .12 bore gun, he fired a shot which hit Mubarik Shah one of the deceased on his left arm, that according to the post-mortem report of Mubarik Shah deceased there is no injury whatsoever on the left arm of Mubarik Shah with fire-arm, that no incriminating weapon of offence was recovered from the petitioner, that he was found innocent in two investigations and ultimately also by A.S.P. And that case of the petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection
(2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He, has relied upon 1978 SCM R 285 and 2000 PCr.LJ 2065.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is named in the F.I.R., he was armed with .12 bore gun, he caused an injury, he was arrested about three months back, that statements of the witnesses were recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. In which they implicated the present petitioner and his case is covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
3. Azhar Abbas, S.-I./S.H.O., Police Station Laksian present in Court submits that no weapon was recovered from the petitioner during the course of investigation and he was found innocent by two Investigating Officers including A.S.P.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties. Going through the F.I.R., post-mortem report of Mubarik Shah deceased, specially diagram of injuries, there is no injury whatsoever what to talk about the left arm but also not a fire-arm, all the injuries either on abdomen. Spinal card or on the left thigh. Moreover, petitioner was also found innocent by two Investigating Officers including the A.S.P., no weapon of offence was recovered from him. I am of the considered opinion, that bail to the petitioner is now his right and the same is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Which cannot be held as punishment. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted.
Petitioner is allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the tune of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.