SHAHZAD AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Shahzad Ahmad, who was charged under sections 337-A(iii), 337-L(iii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly causing a Sota blow to the complainant's nose. The petitioner challenged the lower court's refusal to grant bail, arguing that the medical report lacked an X-ray confirmation of a nasal fracture, rendering the classification of the injury as grievous uncertain. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that his case was identical to that of his co-accused, who had already been granted bail. The Court observed that in the absence of an X-ray report, it could not be definitively determined at the pre-trial stage whether the injury fell under the prohibitory clause of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, finding the petitioner's case analogous to that of the co-accused, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The principle established is that where the severity of an injury is not medically substantiated by diagnostic evidence like an X-ray, the case may not necessarily fall within the prohibitory clause, justifying the grant of bail.
- Does the absence of an X-ray report to confirm a nasal fracture preclude the application of the prohibitory clause in a bail application?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail if their case is at par with co-accused who have already been granted bail?
- Can bail be granted when the classification of an injury as grievous remains unsubstantiated by medical evidence?
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Shahzad Ahmad petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,221 of 2001, dated 3-11-2001 registered with Police Station Pharianwali, District Mandi Bahauddin under section 337-A(iii), 337- L(iii)/34, P.P.C. At the instance of Zulfiqar Ali with the allegation that on 31-10-2001 at 6-45 p.m. The petitioner alongwith others attacked the complainant party and the petitioner caused Sota blow on nose of Zulfiqar complainant.
2. The petitioner was declined relief for his after arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Bahauddin vide order, dated 10-1-2002. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complainant has been attributed only one Sota blow allegedly caused on his nose and according to M.L.R. No reason has been given to, declare the injury attributed to the petitioner under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. As there was no opinion about the fracture of the nasal bone and without X-Ray report such opinion could not be given by the doctor, therefore, the case of the petitioner is also at par with his co-accused who has already been granted bail.
4. Conversely, the bail has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and for the State. Learned counsel for complainant has supplemented his contentions by arguing that according to MLR the injury attributed to the petitioner falls under section 337-A(iii), P.P.C. For which the punishment is 10 years which falls under the prohibitory clause, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for concession of bail. Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner has been attributed injury on the nose of the complainant but according to the M.L.R. There was no X-ray report obtained to declare the injury attributed to the petitioner grievous or the fracture of nasal bone, therefore, it cannot be stated at this stage whether the case of the petitioner falls under the prohibitory clause. His case is also at par with his co-accused, who have been released on bail therefore, I am persuaded to admit the petitioner to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.