MUHAMMAD ASLAM vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where two persons were killed. The petitioner contended that he acted in self-defence, citing his own injuries sustained during the incident and the fact that he had been incarcerated for 18 months without the commencement of the trial. Conversely, the State and the complainant argued that the petitioner was found guilty in three separate investigations and that his injuries were sustained subsequent to the shooting of the deceased. The Court observed that the petitioner's plea of self-defence required a detailed examination of evidence, which is the province of the Trial Court. It held that it would be inappropriate to express an opinion on the merits of the self-defence plea at the bail stage, particularly when the petitioner was named in the F.I.R. and investigations consistently found him guilty. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, maintaining that the matter should be resolved during the trial proceedings.
- Is a plea of self-defence sufficient ground to grant post-arrest bail in a murder case before the trial commences?
- Should a court express an opinion on the merits of a self-defence plea during the bail stage?
- Does the fact that an accused sustained injuries during the incident entitle them to bail in a murder case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Petitioner seeks post-arrest bail it case F.I.R. No,418, dated 22-11-200 under section 302/34, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Bhalwal, District Sargodha.
2. This is a third application of the petitioner on the subject. Earlier two applications were dealt with by another learned Bench, which declined to hear the present petition for personal reasons.
Thereafter, the matter was placed before me. Notice of the petition was issued to of State as well as complainant. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner himself was injured in the incident and in successive investigations, it was found that petitioner was not the person, who had opened the attack, in the first instance but he had fired shot in self-defence and, as such, he deserved concession of bail as trial of criminal case against the petitioner had not commenced and he stood lodged in prison for the past 18 months.
' Learned counsel for the complainant and State, on the other hand, submitted that petitioner had shot to death two persons and in three investigations, he was found guilty and, as a matter of fact, he was injured subsequent to the shooting at the deceased, and, as such, he did not deserve the concession of bail.
4. The case was registered at Police Station Bhalwal regarding the incident, which took place in Sub-Divisional Courts, Bhalwal at about 12-10 p.m. The case was registered within half an hour at the instance of Muhammad Yar, who reported that Muhammad Aslam fired with M-16 rifle at Ghulam Murtaza, Muhammad Ali was overpowered by Bashir Ahmed and others and Muhammad Aslam also fired at Muhammad Ali also died. Motive for le incident was' stated to be previous enmity between Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Aslam. Both the parties had to appear in the Court on the date of occurrence. Muhammad Aslam, no doubt, was injured in the incident but that fact duly finds mentioned in the F.I.R. Itself. The case of the petitioner that he had fired back in self- defence, would be examined by the Trial Court after evidence is led by the parties. At this stage, it is difficult and also inappropriate to give any opinion qua the plea of self-defence, being raised by the petitioner.
5. The petition is dismissed.