MUIIAMMAD FAYYAZ vs THE STATE
This is a criminal petition seeking post-arrest bail for the petitioner, Muhammad Fayyaz, who is implicated in case F.I.R. No. 291 registered under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 337-A(i)(ii), F(iv) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given his alleged role in causing injuries to prosecution witnesses, the corroboration of medical evidence, and his age determination under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is nominated in a promptly lodged F.I.R. with specific roles, supported by injured witnesses and medical evidence, and that his plea regarding age and contradictions in medical reports requires deeper appreciation of evidence which is impermissible at the bail stage. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that bail will be refused where an accused is specifically attributed injuries corroborated by medical and ocular evidence, and where trial delays are attributable to the defense.
- Whether post-arrest bail can be granted to an accused nominated in a promptly lodged F.I.R. with specific roles corroborated by medical evidence?
- Does a plea regarding age determination and dismissal of a juvenile trial application warrant further inquiry at the bail stage?
- Can contradictions between operational notes and medicolegal reports be resolved during the hearing of a bail petition?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000
ORDER
' Muhammad Fayyaz son of Muhammad Sharif seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,291, dated 28- 9-2002 under sections 302, 324, 148, 149, 337-A(i)(ii), F(iv), P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Batapur, Lahore.
2. The allegations levelled by the complainant in the F.I.R. Are that on 28-9-2002 at 5-30 p.m.
Muhammad Hanif younger brother of the complainant was going towards his tube-well. The complainant alongwith his other brothers Ashraf and Muzaffar were also going after him. When Muhammad Hanif passed in front of Haveli of Muhammad Sharif accused, he was asked by Muhammad Sharif to keep his dog tied, on which there was exchange of hot words between Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Sharif complainant and his other two brothers namely Ashraf and Muzaffar tried to cool down the parties when Muhammad Sharif brought hatchet from his Haveli, his son Ishaq arrived armed with .222 rifle, his younger son Farzand also armed with .12 bore gun, Faryad armed with Sota, Fayyaz armed with Hatchet and Muhammad Nawaz armed with Sota also emerged at the spot raising Lalkaras. Muhammad Sharif accused gave hatchet blow hitting on the head of Muhammad HaniT, Ishaq fired from his rifle .222 bore on the back of Muhammad Hanif, Faryad caused Seta blows to Muhammad Hanif, Faryad also fired from his .12 bore gun hitting Ashraf and the complainant. Fayyaz caused hatchet blow on Muzaffar while Nawaz caused Sota blow to him. Fayyaz also caused hatchet blow at the complainant. Muhammad Nawaz and Faryad inflicted injuries to Ashraf. All the four brothers were injured, on which accused fled away from the spot by raising Lalkaras. Muhammad Hanif succumbed to the injuries on the way when he was being removed to the hospital.
3. The relief was declined to the petitioner by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order, dated 29-9-2003. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to school leaving certificate, the petitioner was 17 years of age at the time of occurrence; that he has not been attributed any injury to the deceased and according to F.I.R. He was allegedly armed with hatchet but recovery of Sota has been effected during investigation; that injury attributed to the petitioner are on non-vital part of the body and simple in nature; that there is clear contradiction in the operational notes and MLRs; that the petitioner is behind the bars for more than 1 and half years, therefore, he be allowed bail.
5. The petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for complainant and State.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that petitioner moved an application for his trial as a juvenile offender but his petition was dismissed on the basis of his birth certificate according to which he was more than 18 yews at the time instant occurrence took place and that order has not been further challenged by the petitioner; that the allegation levelled against the petitioner have been corroborated by medical evidence and the injured witnesses support the prosecution story as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R.; that the delay is being caused by the accused in conclusion of the trial that during investigation it has been found that accused party was aggressor party, therefore, the present petitioner is not entitled to any concession of bail.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record very carefully.
8. The petitioner is nominated accused in promptly recorded F.I.R. With specific role having caused injuries with hatchet to three P. Ws. Which have been fully corroborated, by medical evidence. He has already been declared more than 18 years of age when the occurrence took place and his petition for trial under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 has been dismissed. The contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in operational notes and MLRs require deeper appreciation of evidence which is not possible at this stage. The injured P. Ws.
Support the prosecution story for involvement of present petitioner. The delay in conclusion of the trial is being caused by the accused party, therefore, I do not find any force in this petition for grant of extraordinary relief. The petitioner is, therefore, dismissed.