MUHAMMAD AMJAD and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioners, who were accused of facilitating a murder by holding the deceased while their co-accused fired the fatal shot. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite being named in the First Information Report, given that no specific injuries were attributed to them, they had been declared innocent in three separate police investigations, and they had sustained unexplained injuries during the incident. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, determining that their case fell under the category of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that the prosecution's failure to explain the injuries sustained by the petitioners, combined with the findings of innocence in multiple police investigations, created sufficient grounds for relief. The key principle laid down is that under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an accused charged with a serious offence, including those punishable by death or life imprisonment, is entitled to bail if the case against them requires further inquiry, regardless of their presence at the scene.
- Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries sustained by an accused entitle them to bail?
- Can an accused be granted bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if they have been declared innocent in multiple police investigations?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if no specific injury is attributed to them, even if they are alleged to have facilitated the crime?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners and their co-accused, namely, Akbar Ali are real brothers inter se, that allegation against the petitioners was that they raised Lalkara and also held the deceased from his arms while their co-accused, namely, Akbar Ali who was armed with .12 bore double barrel gun caused an injury on the person of the deceased, which proved fatal, that petitioners have also been found innocent by the police in three investigations and that case of the present petitioner is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioners are named in the F.I.R., they have facilitated the commission of offence, that if they had not held the deceased from his arms then, their co-accused could not have fired at the deceased that challan has been submitted in the trial Court, case is fixed for evidence for tomorrow, that both the petitioners were also injured, they were got medically examined, so their presence is proved at the spot.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. No injury is attributed to the present petitioners. It will be determined by the trial Court at the time of trial after recording the evidence whether the petitioners could have held the deceased from his arms or not. Both the petitioners were also injured and the prosecution has not explained their injuries and moreover, the police in three investigations have found them innocent. According to section 497, Cr.P.C. Any accused even charged with an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or 10 years and if his case is of further inquiry falling under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Then he can be granted bail at any stage. In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted. Petitioners are allowed bail subject to furnishing bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000 (Fifty thousand) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the age faction of trial Court. However, a direction is given to the trial Court that if any ace...Fed-petitioner absents himself intentionally fern the trial Court, then, trial Court case cancel his bail.
Cited by 3 cases
- HALEEM KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE and another 2009 P Cr. L J 176
- WAZIR KHAN vs STATE and another PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 526
- WAZIR KHAN vs THE STATE and another 2008 PLD Peshawar 42