Muhammad Saleem vs State S — 2025 YLR 731 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Muhammad Saleem VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the petitioner were that he along with his co-accused persons made indiscriminate firing upon the complainant party, which resulted into the death of one person and caused multiple injuries to another person---Although petitioner was nominated in FIR but no specific role had been ascribed to him therein and a general allegation had been levelled in FIR that he along with his co-accused, five in total, made indiscriminate firing and the fire shots made by all the accused, including the petitioner, landed on the bodies of deceased and injured---During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had opined that only co-accused had made firing at the spot, resultantly, deceased was murdered and one became injured, whereas the petitioner did not make any firing rather he was present at some distance at the time and place of occurrence---In such way, present case had two versions, one put forth by the complainant through FIR and the other in the shape of opinion of the Investigating Officer---Such dichotomy would be resolved by the Trial Court after recording and evaluating the evidence as to which version was correct---At this stage, the case of petitioner squarely fell within the domain of further inquiry as contemplated under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Questions of sharing common intention or vicarious liability of petitioner would also be adjudged by the Trial Court at the time of trial---No doubt only tentative assessment was to be made in post-arrest bail and deeper appreciation or evaluation of evidence at present stage was neither desirable nor permissible---Benefit of doubt could be extended to the accused even at bail stage if the facts of the case so warranted---Petitioner was behind the bars since his arrest and there was no prospect of early conclusion of his trial---Investigation to the extent of petitioner was complete and he was no more required for the purpose of further investigation, therefore, his captivity would not serve any useful purpose and bail could not be withheld as a strategy of punishment---Moreover, keeping the petitioner incarcerated would tantamount to punishing him before the culmination of trial---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Saleem vs State S — 2025 YLR 731 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR