NAMDAR vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant Namdar, facing trial in Crime No. 125 of 2004 under sections 302, 147, 148, 403, and 50 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question involves determining whether the applicant is entitled to bail where general allegations of causing lathi blows are attributed to him, while specific fatal hatchet injuries are assigned to co-accused. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant has made out a case for the grant of bail, noting that specific hatchet blows were attributed to other co-accused and the medical evidence showed injuries corresponding to those specific roles. The court laid down the principle that where an accused is attributed a general role distinct from the fatal blows assigned to others, and has been in custody for a considerable period, a case for further inquiry under bail provisions is made out, subject to furnishing solvent sureties.
- Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when general roles are attributed to an accused while specific fatal injuries are assigned to co-accused?
- Can conflict between ocular and medical evidence be resolved at the bail stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 147, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 403, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 50, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' Bail is sought by the applicant Namdar son of Pahraz Bangulani, facing trial in Crime No,125 of 2004, offence under sections 302, 147, 148, 403, 50, P.P.C.
2. ' Allegation against the present applicant is of causing Lathi blow on the deceased Ghulam Muhammad. In the F.I.R. Specific allegation causing hatchet blow were made against Yousif, Munshi and Sabzal. Whereas other five accused including present applicant is alleged to have caused Lathi blow on the person of deceased. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the medical report shows that the deceased received three injuries on his head. According to him all the injuries are attributed to the persons who are accused of causing hatchet blow, as alleged.
3. Learned State Counsel urged that conflict in ocular and medical evidence cannot be determined at this bail stage and it can only be collected at trial.
4. ' Learned State Counsel opposes the grant of bail on the ground that the name of applicant transpires in F.I.R. And overt act has been attributed to him.
5. ' Having heard the arguments and perused the record from the contents of the F.I.R. It is apparent that specific allegation of causing hatchet blow are made against Yousif, Munshi and Sabzal to have caused and inflicted blow on the head of deceased. Medical evidence apparently shows three injuries, on the head. Though the injury that has been shown as fatal appears to have been caused by the bard and blunt substance and there is possibility that such may be the other side of the hatchet. Applicant appears to have been apprehended on 2-11-2003, and is behind bars since then other accused persons are still at large. The case as argued by the applicant's counsel makes out a case where in my opinion applicant becomes entitle to claim bail. Accordingly, the applicant is extended benefit of bail. However, subject to furnishing two solvent sureties in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one hundred thousand) each and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. ' In case the applicant misuses the concession of bail, the learned trial Court may cancel the bail.