Qaim Khan v. State,
Bench: Ghulam Mustafa Mengal
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involves a bail application before the Balochistan High Court, arising from a violent incident in Quetta in August 2009 where a dispute over a cricket match escalated into an armed attack. The complainant alleged that a group of armed men opened fire, killing one person and seriously injuring several others, and also caused damage using an iron rod. A First Information Report (FIR) was registered under charges including murder, attempted murder, and rioting.
The six applicants in this case were not named in the original FIR. They were only implicated later, when the complainant and two injured witnesses gave supplementary statements to police naming them as participants. No weapons, evidence, or recoveries linked the applicants to the crime during the police investigation.
The court noted that since the applicants were absent from the initial complaint and only surfaced in later statements, questions arose about how the witnesses came to know their identities, especially since the parties reportedly knew each other before the incident. The judge held that this raised the case to the level of "further inquiry," meaning there wasn't yet strong enough evidence to keep the applicants in custody without bail. The court also emphasized that any group/vicarious liability could only be properly assessed during trial, not at the bail stage, and that suspects shouldn't be jailed indefinitely as a form of punishment before their guilt is proven. Bail was therefore granted, with the court clarifying its remarks were tentative and would not affect the actual trial.
یہ کیس بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ میں ضمانت کی ایک درخواست سے متعلق ہے، جو اگست 2009 میں کوئٹہ میں پیش آنے والے ایک پرتشدد واقعے سے جنم لیتا ہے، جہاں کرکٹ میچ پر ہونے والا جھگڑا مسلحانہ حملے میں تبدیل ہو گیا۔ مدعی کے مطابق مسلح افراد کے ایک گروہ نے فائرنگ کی، جس کے نتیجے میں ایک شخص ہلاک اور کئی افراد شدید زخمی ہوئے، نیز لوہے کی راڈ سے بھی نقصان پہنچایا گیا۔ اس واقعے پر قتل، قتل کی کوشش اور فسادات سمیت مختلف دفعات کے تحت ایف آئی آر درج کی گئی۔
اس مقدمے کے چھ درخواست گزاروں کا نام ابتدائی ایف آئی آر میں شامل نہیں تھا۔ انہیں بعد میں اس وقت ملزم ٹھہرایا گیا جب مدعی اور دو زخمی گواہوں نے پولیس کو اضافی بیانات دیتے ہوئے ان کا نام بطور شریک ملزم لیا۔ پولیس تفتیش کے دوران کوئی اسلحہ، شواہد یا برآمدگی ایسی نہیں ملی جو درخواست گزاروں کو جرم سے جوڑتی ہو۔
عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ چونکہ
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2010 Y L R 1077
[Quetta]
Before Ghulam Mu stafa Mengal, J
QAIM KHAN and 5 others ---Applicants
Versus
THE STATE ---Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No.208 of 2009, decided on 27th October, 2009.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S.497 ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324 /34/147/148/149 ---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit Qatl -i-amd, rioting ---Bail, grant of ---Accused were not nominated in the F.I.R. --- Complainant and two eye -witnesses had implicated the accused in this supplementary statements --No other incriminating evidenc e was so far available to prima facie connect the accused with the commission of the offence ---Vicarious liability of the accused in the crime would be determined at the trial after recording evidence ---Case against accused was one of further inquiry ---Nothing incriminating had been recovered from the accused during police investigation ---Accused could not be detained in jail for indefinite period and bail could not be withhold as a punish ment ---Bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.
PLJ 1999 SC 727; 1997 PCr.LJ 494; 2000 PCr.LJ 1096; 1996 SCMR 1654; 1980 SCMR 784; 1994 SCMR 2051; 1997 SCMR 445; 1990 SCMR 346 and 2002 PCr.LJ 1532 ref.
Kamran Murtaza for Applicants.
H. Shakeel Ahmed, Muhammad
Rafique Langove and Malook Ahmed Langov for the C omplainant.
Zahoor Ahmed Shahwani, P. -G. for the State.
ORDER
GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J .---Through this application under section 498 Cr.P.C. the applicants, Qaim Khan, Samiullah, Abdul Hameed, Muhammad Adeel, Saddam Hussain and Abdul Hanan seek bai l in F.I.R. No.108/2009, dated 28 -8-2009 registered under sections 302, 324, 34, 147, 148 and 149 P.P.C. at Police Station Industrial Area, Quetta on the application of Abdul Qudus son of Noor Muhammad by caste Langov, resident of Killi Allahabad, Quetta.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as disclosed in the F.I.R. are that on 28 -8-2009 the complainant along with Muhammad Zaman, Muhammad Arif, Mehboob and Haji Ghulam Muhammad, all by caste Langov, were present at Killi Allahabad near Railway Lin e, at about 12 Noon Behram Khan son of Fateh Muhammad, Jamil Ahmed son of Behram Khan, Saeed Ahmed son of Lal Muhammad armed with T.T. Pistol while Ustad Fazal Son of Muhammad Yousaf, Abdul Karim son of Umar Khan, Naveed Ahmed son of Nazir Ahmed, Ghous Bakhsh son of Rasool Bakhsh by caste Zehri armed with Kalashnikov and Sajjad son of Ali having an iron rod in his hand along with 5/6 unknown accused persons equipped with Dandas came there, boarded in three vehicles. Ustad Fazal fired at Muhammad Zaman with Kalashnikov due to which he died on the spot. Naveed Ahmed fired at Haji Ghulam Muhammad with Kalashnikov, who received serious injuries on, his body; while Abdul Karim fired at Muhammad Arif with Kalashnikov, who also received serious injuries on his body and fell down; whereas, Mehboob was injured by the other accused persons; while the complainant was hit by Sajjad with iron rod due to which he received fracture on his left arm. On hearing firing Abdul Rasool son of Mosa Khan, Nisar Ahmed son of Malik Ja n Muhammad, Muhammad Siddique son of Malik Karam Khan and other persons came there thereafter the accused persons escaped leaving their two vehicles bearing registration No.AAE -913 Sherad and AAD -462 Corolla Model 1982 in red colour. The complainant along with other persons had taken the injured and dead bodies to Hospital. The motive as stated in the F.I.R. was a dispute over a cricket match occurred on 27 -8-2009 between Farid Ahmed son of Malik Jan Muhammad and Asad son of Wazir Khan and others with the s ons of Ghous Bakhsh Zehri.
3. The applicants are not nominated in the F.I.R. but they were implicated in the supplementary statements, which were recorded by the Police on 30 -8-2009 and 1 -9-2009.
4. In support of this bail application, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. They are not nominated in the F.I.R. He submits that applicant No.1 is a student, whose date of birth is 11 -9-1993. He further subm its that the applicants have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant in his supplementary statement recorded on 30 -8-2009 and the injured Muhammad Arif and Nisar Ahmed, whose supplementary statement has been recorded on 1 -9-2009. He further contended that no recovery of any sort have been effected from them, which makes the case of the applicants doubtful and of further inquiry, He further contended that no specific roles have been assigned to the applicants in the supplementary statements. The learned counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on the cases reported as PLJ 1999 SC 727, 1997 PCr.LJ 494, 2000 PCr.LJ 1096, 1996 SCMR 1654, 1980 SCMR 784 and 1994 SCMR 2051.
5. On the other hand the learned Prosecution General and couns el for the complainant, who opposing the bail application, submitted that the applicants are nominated in the supplementary statement made by the complainant and two other eye witnesses namely Nisar Ahmed and Arif (injured), which shows that the applicants were present on the spot and participated in the occurrence with their common intention and the applicants are not entitled to bail. The learned counsel for complainant has placed reliance on cases 1997 SCMR 445, 1990 SCMR 346 and 2002 PCr.LJ 1532.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with due care and caution. It is an admitted fact that the applicants are not nominated in the F.I.R. It is also an admitted fact that the F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of statement of complainant but latter on the complainant and two other witnesses implicated the applicants in the commission of offence through their supplementary statements recorded by the Investigating Officer on 30 -8-2009 and 1 -9-2009 but t hey have failed to explain as to how they came to know the names of the accused/applicants, while they know each others prior to the occurrence. Since the applicants are not nominated in the F.I.R. and they have been implicated in the supplementary stateme nt by the complainant and two eye -witnesses; which fact also brings the case of applicants within the ambit of further inquiry.
7. For the time being except the supplementary statement of the complainant and eye - witnesses there is no other incriminating evidence on the record to prima facie connect the applicants with the commission of offence. So far as the question of vicarious liability of the applicants for the commission of offence is concerned, as per tentative assessment of the record, that is to b e determined after recording the evidence of the prosecution. The applicants were arrested on 30 -8-2009 and after completion of investigation they were sent to the judicial custody but nothing has been recovered from the applicants during the investigation . After perusal of the police file, I find no incriminating evidence against the applicants to believe that they are connected with the commission of offence. The applicants cannot be detained in jail for indefinite period, who even otherwise, have succeed ed in making out a case of further inquiry and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.
8. For the foregoing reasons the instant bail application is accepted and the applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,0 00 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are not designed to influence the course of trial in any manner.
N.H.Q./2/Q Bail allow ed.