MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail concerns an accused charged under sections 324, 336, 337-F(v)(vi), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for allegedly firing at the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given that the local police investigation found him innocent, despite the Magistrate's disagreement with the discharge report. The Court held that the petitioner's case warranted further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was attributed only a single, non-fatal gunshot wound, did not repeat the fire, and had been declared innocent by the police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Furthermore, the petitioner had been incarcerated for over five months and had no prior criminal convictions. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where the police investigation exonerates an accused and the injury attributed is on a non-vital part without repetition, the case falls under the category of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does a police finding of innocence, even when disagreed with by a Magistrate, constitute grounds for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the attribution of a single, non-fatal gunshot wound without repetition sufficient to justify bail in a case involving section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can an accused be granted bail if they have been declared innocent by the police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police during the investigation?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 336, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Muhammad Hanif, the petitioner through the instant petition has sought for post-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No.88 dated 1-4-2003 under section 324/336/337- F(v)(vi)/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station, Zafarwal, Tehsil and District Narowal.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that on 1-4-2003 at about 10-00 a.m. Muhammad Hanif (petitioner) and Muhammad Ramzan armed with .30 bore pistols along with two unknown persons armed with pistols had fired with their respective weapons at Muhammad lqbal complainant. The fires made by Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Hanif had hit him on his right ankle and he fell down. The fires made by his unknown companions had hit him (complainant) on his right thigh.
They (accused) thereafter, fled away on motor-cycles while firing.
3. The motive behind the occurrence is that Muhammad Hanif was engaged to elder sister of the complainant's fiancee but his engagement was broken while the complainant's marriage was to take place on the next date. Muhammad Hanif accused wanted to deter the complainant from marrying there.
4. It has been argued on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that only one fire shot is attributed to him; that there was no repetition of fire on his part; that the injury ascribed to him was on the non-vital part of the body of the complainant and this heavily suggests that he had no intention to kill him; that the local police have found him innocent, which has been verified by the D.S.P. And that is why the report for his discharge from the case was prepared but the same was not agreed to by the learned Magistrate concerned; that the police have placed him in Column No.2 of the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. And the same necessitates further inquiry into his guilt; that he is behind the bars for the last more than five months; and that he is previous non-convict.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he is named in the F.I.R.; that specific role of causing fire-arm injury to the complainant at his right ankle is ascribed to him; that the motive is also directly relatable to him; and that the offence does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. He however, has conceded that the petitioner was found innocent by the local police and the same was verified by the D.S.P. Concerned and the report for his discharge from the case was prepared and the same was not agreed to by the learned Magistrate concerned.
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 solitary fire shot to the complainant is attributed to him. He did not repeat the fire to him. The injury attributed to him was on the non-vital part of the body of the complainant.
8. He admittedly during the investigation by the local police was found innocent and the same was verified by the D.S.P. Concerned. It is also admitted position on the record that report for his discharge from the case was prepared but the learned Magistrate concerned did not agree to the same.
9. All these facts make his case as one of further inquiry into his guilt. The same, therefore, is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
10. He is behind the bars for the last more than five months and stated to be previous non-convict, which has not .Been controverted by the State's side.
11. In these circumstances, the petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Illaqa/Duty Magistrate/trial Court.